Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle and Red Hat begin battle for the Enterprise

Hemos posted about 8 years ago | from the the-heat-is-on dept.

135

Salvance writes "Yahoo News (via ComputerWire) is reporting that Oracle and Red Hat are turning up the heat in the battle over Oracle's new enterprise Linux offering. While Oracle claims they'll be able to offer their 'Unbreakable' version of Red Hat's Linux offering for half the price, Red Hat asserts that all the important security and hardware certifications would be invalidated on Oracle's offering.

At this point, the only thing that's certain is that Red Hat needs to figure out how to keep their large Oracle Enterprise clients on board or risk becoming a takeover target (undoubtably, with Oracle leading the list of potentially bidders)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Was I the only one who thought... (1, Funny)

Alicat1194 (970019) | about 8 years ago | (#16640703)

Man, Cpt Kirk's not going to like that!

Re:Was I the only one who thought... (1)

Zarniwoop_Editor (791568) | about 8 years ago | (#16640761)

Awww gee... Everyone knows that the Enterpise computers run Vista.. ;-)

Re:Was I the only one who thought... (3, Funny)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 8 years ago | (#16641031)

Awww gee... Everyone knows that the Enterpise computers run Vista.. ;-)

Nah, MacOS. Don't you remember Star Trek IV: Save The Whales?

"A keyboard. How... quaint."

Re:Was I the only one who thought... (2, Funny)

risk one (1013529) | about 8 years ago | (#16642165)

Awww gee... Everyone knows that the Enterpise computers run Vista.. ;-)
Yes, I believe RC4 had just come out.

Re:Was I the only one who thought... (0, Offtopic)

WedgeTalon (823522) | about 8 years ago | (#16641503)

I came in just to ensure that a Star Trek joke was made.

Thanks for not letting me down. :)

That's great! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640725)

And while they are busy pummeling each other Ubuntu will take the lead. As a former alienated Red Hat user I am glad Red Hat is getting some bad karma. Back in the day when Red Hat was free I would regardless go down to CompUSA and buy a copy to support them. Then they came out with this Fedora/Red Hat model where they aren't willing to eat their own dog food. I have installed Fedora numerous times only to be disappointed with the number of bugs in a very obvious unfinished product. I know the latest release of Ubuntu has had its issues, but I haven't gone to it as I have been very pleased with Ubuntu LTS. It is the stable version comparable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but it is available to all and yes I support it via donations.

Re:That's great! (3, Insightful)

montyzooooma (853414) | about 8 years ago | (#16640757)

"And while they are busy pummeling each other Ubuntu will take the lead."

In the enterprise server business? That doesn't seem all that likely...

Re:That's great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640781)

"In the enterprise server business? That doesn't seem all that likely..."

Here you go.... it's already happening.

http://www.ubuntu.com/sun [ubuntu.com]

http://www.ubuntu.com/server [ubuntu.com]

Aargh! The horror! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640943)

*throws hands in air and runs away, screaming*

Using Ubuntu on an enterprise server is about as appealing as using Gentoo (On anything).

Re:That's great! (3, Informative)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | about 8 years ago | (#16641059)

First of all, Sun is no longer a server powerhouse. So, they are a poor example.

Second of all, you obviously have never worked in a large enterprise. In large enterprises, they pay millions of dollars for critical applications. The last thing a large enterprise would want to depend on is some teenager providing free support on an IRC channel. In addition, if I am running SAP/Oracle or some other critical vendor application, I would only install it on an operating system that is actually supported by the vendor. The last time I checked my present client's PeopleSoft (now Oracle) support policy, Ubuntu was no where to be found. Hell, they only had a few Red Hat options. I doubt I could find more than a handful of enterprise applications that support Ubuntu.

Re:That's great! (2, Informative)

blueflash2o (931322) | about 8 years ago | (#16641477)

they pay millions of dollars for critical applications. The last thing a large enterprise would want to depend on is some teenager providing free support on an IRC channel.
They don't have to they can pay Canonical for support which is the ubuntu founders company. http://news.com.com/2008-1012_3-6130484.html?part= rss&tag=6130484&subj=news [com.com]

Re:That's great! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16642535)

They don't have to they can pay Canonical for support which is the ubuntu founders company.

For large Enterprises, having a supported Linux distribution isn't enough. In environments like that you are typically running obscenely expensive mission critical software and for optimum stability you want to run it on an OS or in this case a Linux distribution which isn't just supported by the OS vendor but which is also supported and recommended by the manufacturer of your expensive mission critical software. In addition you might have other restrictions such as government mandated demands that the distribution be certified for a certain security level etc... If you are a large Enterprise all this combines drastically narrow down your selection of Linux distributions. You can get an mission critical Oracle Database up and running on any Linux distribution with a bit of patience, including Ubuntu, but Oracle only does extensive tests on it's databases for a finite set of Linux distributions and the moment you have a problem with your Oracle database running on Ubuntu and call Oracle support they might leave you sitting with your problem because Ubuntu Linux is not on that list of Linux distributions for which they certify Oracle products (for Oracle DB 10g that list contains: RHEL4, RHEL3, SLES9). Software vendor are quite merciless that way they have little patience for people who don't follow their recommendations about basic stuff like recommended Linux distributions.

Re:That's great! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 8 years ago | (#16643357)

you must be joking, enterprises aren't going to trust a company no one's ever heard of for their technical support. Until the day Oracle lists Ubuntu as a certified os it's a moot point anyway, it's redhat, suse or asianux.

Re:That's great! (2, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | about 8 years ago | (#16640763)

I've had two Ubuntu installs fubar'ed by bad automatic updates. It's fine for my desktop, but for a server (an RHEL replacement), I'd pick Debian stable any day. Actually I prefer Debian stable over RHEL. I just got through dealing when some major autofs bugs in RHEL 4 -- apparently been there forever -- bind mounts through a program map simply don't work without major hacks.

Re:That's great! (2, Informative)

jmyers (208878) | about 8 years ago | (#16640863)

I've been using Red Hat since 1995 with starting with version 2.0. I have used every version since including every Fedora release. I use RHEL4 with a contract for a production system at work. I have never really had a problem with the OS. I cant say that I've ever had an unstable system except when I did major customization and deviated way off the official software versions.

I have also tried Ubuntu, but I really don't see much difference from Fedora. It just has the mp3 support, etc already installed. Even though it is an inconvenience, I like Red Hat's policy towards non-free software.

As for Oracle, they just don't have my trust for support on a production Linux system. Red Hat has been around and stayed the course as a trustworthy vendor. I expect a lot of sysadmins are just not going to trust Oracle offering. They seem to be looking for a free ride rather than to provide a value added service.

It's not about individual users (2, Insightful)

melonman (608440) | about 8 years ago | (#16640959)

I don't think Red Hat's financial model relies much on people who used to buy a set of CDs for their home computer, and Oracle is even less interested in that market. The real money is in selling ES contracts to ISPs with hundreds or thousands of machines, or, especially, AS contracts with big companies.

As for RHEL/Fedora, I've been running RHEL on all my machines for the last couple of years, recently tried Fedora Core 5, and I'm no wondering why I wouldn't switch to that for most of my office machines (having one local machine running the same build as my leased webservers is IMO worth the money). I keep my downloaded Fedora CDs in one of my Red Hat 7.0 envelope for old time's sake...

And the reason it will take a lot to make me consider moving to Ubuntu or any other distro is simply that I can't bear the thought of going through the "where have they hidden this config file?" experience another time. If I'd gone with the trends as suggested by /. headlines, I would have moved from Red Hat to Mandrake to Gentoo to Ubuntu in the last four years, learned far more about the gnostic secrets of Linux than I ever want to learn, and been half as productive at my job (application programming) as a result. "Better the devil you know" counts for a lot for many OS users.

Re:It's not about individual users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16641269)

I'd have to agree here. I have experimented with other distros, but when you stay with one (RH in my case)
and trouble strikes it is a good feeling when you have that deju vu feeling that you've been here, done that before..
and then type in "cd " and find the config file/app you are looking for to fix your problem.

Re:It's not about individual users (1)

crush (19364) | about 8 years ago | (#16642723)

I don't think Red Hat's financial model relies much on people who used to buy a set of CDs for their home computer, and Oracle is even less interested in that market.

It's my understanding that the boxed sets were a consisent money loser for Red Hat.

Given the amount that they invest that benefits ALL distributions I'd rather see Red Hat continue to survive as a profit-making good-player in the community.

They've done a lot of good by: hiring people that hack the kernel, help to write the Free Java stuff (classpath and gcj), pretty much pay for the development of gcc (through what used to be Cygnus), have purchased and Free'ed what was Netscape Directory Server (now http://www.redhat.com/solutions/directoryserver/ [redhat.com] Red Hat Directory Server and Fedora Directory Server http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/ [redhat.com] ) and consistently refuse to include patent-encumbered crap in their distribution.

They also provide a very visible rebuttal to anyone that says you can't make money with a Free operating-system. They show that Free Software makes good business sense and that a business can be built on providing excellent service and nurturing the rest of the community.

I think it's in everyone's interest that Red Hat stays out of the clutches of the asshats in Oracle.

Re:It's not about individual users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16644109)

Furthermore, watch Red Hat dump serious money into mysql development. With the proper support, that could turn into a major competitor for Oracle Database in a year or two. Plus it would be free/free. I don't think Oracle knows who they're messing with here.

Re:That's great! (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 8 years ago | (#16642425)

And while they are busy pummeling each other Ubuntu will take the lead.

On the server side? are you kidding?

Back in the day when Red Hat was free I would regardless go down to CompUSA and buy a copy to support them.

All Rehat did was rebrand their free offering as Fedora so PHB's would not get confused between Red Hat and RHEL.

Then they came out with this Fedora/Red Hat model where they aren't willing to eat their own dog food.

Huh? Most of the crap in Fedora ends up in RHEL Ive been through FC 1-6 and RHEL 2.1 to four and have seen the correlation. Look Redhat is in business to make a buck that, in and of itself, is not evil. The conduct themselves in an ethical manner and give back a ton to the Linux community. Just because they run their business differently than you would does not indicate they have bad karma

Re:That's great! (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | about 8 years ago | (#16643119)

Do you run Oracle on Ubuntu? If not then you are not even in this ball game. Red Hat and Oracle are not after home/hobbest users who shop at CompUSA. They are after the use who is willing to pay big $$ for support

Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 8 years ago | (#16640749)

"...At this point, the only thing that's certain is that Red Hat needs to figure out how to keep their large Oracle Enterprise clients on board or risk becoming a takeover target (undoubtably, with Oracle leading the list of potentially bidders)."

I know that deep within each of RedHat and Oracle's camp, these two companies agree in this:

It's all about the money, but in my not so humble opinion, I see RedHat as having an uphill battle on this one.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640881)

I know that deep within each of RedHat and Oracle's camp

Red Hat may have its faults but the unforgivable sin of putting a capital letter in the middle of a word is not one of them. It's Red Hat. Not RedHat.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16643309)

Don't be too hard on him; Linux can't handle spaces.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (1)

radu_tpg (601573) | about 8 years ago | (#16640913)

Do not forget that ORCL is quite good marketing its products ...
In fact, looking at their products, I'm really disappointed. Too many nasty bugs, too much fuss with every new release.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16641201)

I think that Oracle is making a bad move here. Instead of partnering with Redhat, to provide a really stable and well working solution, they have chosen to just rape Redhat of all their hard work, brand it as their own, and cut Redhat out of the profits. I think that this may backfire on them. Many users of Redhat use it because it works well with Oracle. However, at this point, if nobody is using Redhat for Oracle, then Redhat may just stop being produced. If it doesn't go that far, we may see Oracle not working so well on Redhat, and the Oracle team, having to make tons of changes to Unbreakable Linux (haven't they got in trouble for making such claims before), just to get their Database to work. What is Oracles plan for providing updates? They can't just pass the updates on the second after Redhat releases them, as they will have to test them on their own distro. I don't think users will take the story that it's Redhat's fault when they release a patch that hoses their system. So, they have to test the updates for a week, then users will be waiting an extra week for the updates. I think it's a little underhanded to try to cut out the people making the operating system that made your product so strong in the first place.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (2, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | about 8 years ago | (#16641965)

> if nobody is using Redhat for Oracle, then Redhat may just stop being produced.

You think that Oracle wasn't looking for precisely that outcome? Larry Ellison is pissed that Redhat dared move into middleware space by buying JBoss, and now he wants to cut their legs out from under them. It's nothing more or less than a a personal vendetta from Larry Ellison -- this guy makes Steve Ballmer look like Mark Shuttleworth.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16642205)

But then where will Oracle get their Linux from. Right now, they're just kind of taking Redhat, removing all the logos and trademark stuff, ala CentOS, and calling it their own. If Redhat stops producing Linux, or stops producing versions of Redhat that work well with Oracle, then I think Oracle is going to have a very hard time maintain their own distro, since they don't really have any experience with that. I think that Redhat should start to move into the database market by really pushing PostgreSQL and Redhat.

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 8 years ago | (#16642507)

I think that Oracle is making a bad move here. Instead of partnering with Redhat, to provide a really stable and well working solution, they have chosen to just... avail themselves of the GPL license

Re:Oracle and RedHat have this in common... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16642821)

I know the GPL License says you can do this, I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal, I'm saying they have made a bad decision. Now they will have to shoulder the responsibility of creating a quality distro. Redhat was doing a lot of work to make sure they had a quality distro. I'm sure there was also a lot of work being done to make sure Oracle worked correctly (because many people buy Redhat to run Oracle). If nobody is buying Redhat to run oracle, then they certainly don't have any reason to continue to make sure Oracle runs well. I think that Oracle may end up regreting this, because they are thinking that there's little work required in maintaining an enterprise level distro.

Plain business sense (1)

joshsnow (551754) | about 8 years ago | (#16642725)

they have chosen to just rape Redhat of all their hard work, brand it as their own, and cut Redhat out of the profits

Dare I say it, that is exacty what the GPL allows you to do. So long as Oracle make their changes publically available, then there's no problem with taking that approach. That, by definition, is what forking is.

As other posters point out, Red Hat have moved into the middleware space, bringing them into direct competition with Oracle and Oracle is competing very aggressively to protect not only their middleware business, but ultimately, their database business which is their cash cow. If "Enterprises" decide that there are cost savings to be made using an open source operating system and opensource app servers they might just decide that they should be using open source database servers too. Larry Ellison doesn't care, so long as they (continue to) pay Oracle to do so.

Re:Plain business sense (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16643333)

But if businesses decide that there's savings to be had by moving to an open source database, I don't exactly see how Oracle providing their own version of Linux will stop that. It's not like Oracle will be offering Postgres as a supported option for the database. People will still be saving money by moving to an open source database. I would also like to point out that I never said that what Oracle was doing was illegal, or against the GPL, I simply said it was a bad idea. If Oracle wants to fork they can, but they haven't. They're just taking redhat and rebranding it, without doing any work. And I think that may bite them back. If Redhat has nobody using Oracle directly on Redhat, then they have no reason to ensure that it works. And that means a lot of extra work for Oracle.

but for how long? (1)

otacon (445694) | about 8 years ago | (#16640751)

One of Red Hat's arguments is that the security and hardware certs will be voided because of Oracle's changes, most natably the Security cert with the U.S. Governent. But for how long? I don't see it taking that long for Oracle to "make things happen" considering the size and power of the company. If history is any indicator, if Larry Ellison wants something, he'll get it.

Re:but for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640869)

I downloaded the 4 ISO images for Oracle Enterprise Linux and installed in on Friday. One of the changes I noticed between Oracle EL and Red Hat AS 4 is the default Apache web page. On Oracle, the title proudly proclaims "Test Page powered by hamsters high on pixie stix".

I am not kidding about this. Kind of makes me wonder how much time they actually spent putting this thing together.

Puhleez (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640753)

You can't just pull a support infrastructure out of your ass for an Enterprise quality distribution that you didn't put together. Serious Admins arent going to trust this. Database Admins maybe!

Oracle will win. (1)

Soltys (980516) | about 8 years ago | (#16640769)

Oracle will win in this "battle" because Larry Ellison do everything to get upset Microsoft.
And Oracle have more money than Red Hat

Re:Oracle will win. (1)

tb3 (313150) | about 8 years ago | (#16640803)

Which is depressing really. After Microsoft, Oracle is the top of my list of companies who'll ship any piece of crap to make a buck.

Sounds like they are cooking (1)

jlebrech (810586) | about 8 years ago | (#16640793)

Next up they will be eating the hat.

Excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640835)

Let the battle begin! This is great news! Tear yourselves apart! Let's see who the king of the hill is. Is anybody taking any bets?

My bet is - Ubuntu will win. You can not buy Ubuntu. How can you compete with that? Shuttleworth has said he has invested enough money to make sure Ubuntu will be around for as long as we live.

Re:Excellent news! (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 8 years ago | (#16642557)

You can not buy Ubuntu. How can you compete with that?

Simple you apply this criterium to your servers: They must be supported, they must have enterprise level applications certified to run on them...

Good, good... (1)

Null Nihils (965047) | about 8 years ago | (#16640837)

I think some competition will be good for Linux and OSS at this point. Linux distros aren't just a desktop OS, they are an infinitely adaptable and extensible platform, one that I'd like to see taken to new places while these two companies duke it out. I can see this doing good things for enterprise IT, and the general consumer, too. As long as the fight stays in the OSS ring, the best man will win, fighting based on actual merit, without anyone resorting to proprietary licenses, patents, or lawsuits (hopefully).

Also note that while Microsoft further locks down what ISV's can do with their platform, yet another formidable company picks up the Linux gauntlet...

Re:Good, good... (1)

Chaffar (670874) | about 8 years ago | (#16640947)

Linux distros aren't just a desktop OS, they are an infinitely adaptable and extensible platform, one that I'd like to see taken to new places while these two companies duke it out.
Then again it's not really a fair fight since apparently Oracle's gonna propose much lower prices, flexing its financial muscle to force Red Hat out of the market.
Methinks that at some point we're going to see court action brought forward by Red Hat against Oracle for using "copyrighted code" à la SCO to ensure their survival for an extra 2-3 years.

So... (0)

franksands (938435) | about 8 years ago | (#16640841)

Let me get this straight? Oracle will use an altered version of Red Hat to beat Red Hat? wouldnt this prove that Oracle succeeded *because* the Red Hat distribution works?

Re:So... (1)

eln (21727) | about 8 years ago | (#16642149)

Yes, it would. I'm sure that thought will keep Red Hat's former employees warm at night after the company goes bankrupt.

DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 8 years ago | (#16640871)

See Red Hat's patent policy [redhat.com] . Consider their "promise": Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent. It's not a license, it's not irrevocable, it's not even a hard promise: it's just an indication that the present owners of Red Hat probably won't sue you for infringing their patents today.

So, does anyone think that Oracle will feel bound by this "promise" if they buy Red Hat?

Re:DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (1)

ajs318 (655362) | about 8 years ago | (#16641497)

Software Patents will be dead and buried within the next 20 years. A change of government in the USA is likely -- and the new government might decide that software patents are anti-competitive, and annul them all in one fell swoop.

If they ever try to introduce software patents in the EU or UK, where retrospective application of a newly-enacted law is explicitly illegal, every falsely-granted software patent will be null and void -- and the holders will have to reapply for them. Meanwhile, anything that would have infringed those patents ahd they been valid, will now be prior art which can be cited to block the "new" applications.

It's all a mess, and there is only one way out of it: no software patents.

Re:DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (1)

nuzak (959558) | about 8 years ago | (#16641991)

Software Patents will be dead and buried within the next 20 years. A change of government in the USA is likely -- and the new government might decide that software patents are anti-competitive, and annul them all in one fell swoop.

What color is the sky in your world?

Re:DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 8 years ago | (#16642605)

A change of government in the USA is likely

Hmm 5 presidential election cycles, 10 congressional cycles and 3.3 Senate cycles... yea Id say a change in government is pretty likely..

i guess (0)

thripper (965380) | about 8 years ago | (#16640873)

In the end we'll have some free, open source OS released under the supervision of a giant corp. Just what we wanted.

And the winner is... (1)

jackharrer (972403) | about 8 years ago | (#16640877)

US patent office. Think what is going to happen.

Round One: RedHat introduces some great innovation, just to diffrentiate from Oracle and patents it.
round Two: They say that Oracle Linux is no longer compatible with RedHat. Just for marketing purposes. And to convince management folks in big companies around the world that RedHat and Oracle ARE NOT THE SAME.
Round Three: And what now? Sue the b*stards! Question is who is going to sue whom? If Oracle releases something based on patented idea - RedHat. Or Oracle will try to 'protect' OSS community from patents.

General lot of politics. What means for us fun to watch. Of course as long as you're not administering RedHat network. I feel your pain.

Re:And the winner is... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 8 years ago | (#16642877)

Must resist ..... (voice in back of head ... "Resistance is Futile")

Round Four: ....

Round Five: Profit?????

FreeBSD and PostgreSQL in the enterprise. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640895)

We have started to use FreeBSD and PostgreSQL for our enterprise operations.

Basically, we have found that FreeBSD 6 scales better than Linux on the multiprocessor Opteron hardware we're currently using. Running Java EE 5 via FreeBSD's Linux binary emulation, we were able to consolidate onto one server several web applications that we previously had to run on several separate Linux systems. What's more, the average load of our new system is just under half that of the previous Linux installations, even though the hardware is exactly the same.

We've also started using PostgreSQL lately. We had been using a mix of various commercial SQL server softwares, but transitioned several of our DB servers over to PostgreSQL. We noticed immediate performance improvements. One particular system can now handle 300% more transactions per second than it could when using the previous, commercial database system.

We really don't care what Oracle and Red Hat do. Let them battle for our purchases all they want. We'll be sticking with FreeBSD and PostgreSQL, because they get the job done efficiently and effectively.

Re:FreeBSD and PostgreSQL in the enterprise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16641009)

What? You missed the funerals? Good to hear Freebsd has one user left!

Re:FreeBSD and PostgreSQL in the enterprise. (1)

ajs318 (655362) | about 8 years ago | (#16641539)

And pretty soon, if the rumours of Open Source Java are to be believed, you may well have a native Java build which won't depend on Linux binary emulation (which has got to be slowing things down; there are no two ways about it). Interesting Times.

Re:FreeBSD and PostgreSQL in the enterprise. (1)

nuzak (959558) | about 8 years ago | (#16642041)

Linux binary emulation doesn't slow anything down. FreeBSD itself goes through the very same syscall translation layer; the Linux layer simply uses a different syscall map. It sucks up resources though, since it does of course have to load a different set of userland libraries, another libc, all the X client libs for gui apps, etc.

And FreeBSD has had a native java port for a while: http://www.freebsd.org/java/ [freebsd.org]

Re:FreeBSD and PostgreSQL in the enterprise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16642315)


someone doesnt know how to fine tune a linux box?? i have used both, with similar performance since 2.6.something....

Larry Ellison - nobody just can't have it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640897)

Time to hit Larry Ellison where it hurts. That scumbag has always got what he wanted. It's just too much for one man to have it all. Red Hat will be the winner in the OSS boxing ring!

Re:Larry Ellison - nobody just can't have it all (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 8 years ago | (#16643017)

Hmmm. He has a superior DB that has controlled the upper end of DBs (but a company out there is trying hard to use their monopoly to push an inferior DB; In addition, Oracle is under pressure from DB2 and OSS Dbs). He does not have a monopoly on the business software (Again a company with a monopoly is trying to weasil its way there; but the real competition is a german company who uses Oracle DB).

Ellison does not have a monopoly. Now he is trying to expand into Linux. I say fine. Redhat has it right. They have lots more to offer the end users than does Oracle. If nothing else, look at the fact that Oracle has been top dollar and still owns the top even while charging that. In fact, I would bet that Redhat will grow faster not slower.

Prepare Yourselves Now (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | about 8 years ago | (#16640933)

. . . for the nine circles of Oracle Support hell.

Re:Prepare Yourselves Now (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16641037)

Just imagine installing Linux using Oracle Universal Installer. Actually, don't do that.

So lemme see if I got this right (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16640951)

According to the "business models" for OSS, the reason to ship your product as OSS is so you can get marketshare more quickly at the expense of initial profit.

Then when you have sufficient marketshare, you can (theoretically) reap the moderate profits of servicing the large user base. (profits that are moderate in terms of that user base, but larger than you would have gotten with a normal business model and a smaller user base)

However, according to this new Oracle vs. RedHat scenario, what happens instead when you get sufficient marketshare (after working really hard on building your brand at minimal ROI and all that stuff) is that you get noticed by a big fish with a bigger brand, and they just take the market from you. And the reason this can happen is because your brand is built on OSS and anyone can fork it (even if all they do in their fork is just to copy you)

Hmmm. Nice!

Sounds like a resounding win for OSS, and a great reason to follow the OSS business model... NOT!

Re:So lemme see if I got this right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16641165)

Sounds like a resounding win for OSS, and a great reason to follow the OSS business model... NOT!

This was pretty interesting scenario that happened. What amazes me is that NOBODY could see something like this coming! Not even the biggest experts! Not even RMS! Not even the best business analysts could see that somebody could come up with such a masterplan. However, Oracle doesn't realize it will have its own Vietnam with this battle against RedHat.

Anyway - none of this really matters. Proprietary software model is dead anyway, so it really doesn't matter if something like this happens now or a year later. The future is open no matter what. You can fight it as much as you can, but that's the way it's going to be. Better just admit it now and not waste any energy fighting it.

Re:So lemme see if I got this right (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | about 8 years ago | (#16642873)

Anyway - none of this really matters. Proprietary software model is dead anyway, so it really doesn't matter if something like this happens now or a year later. The future is open no matter what. You can fight it as much as you can, but that's the way it's going to be. Better just admit it now and not waste any energy fighting it.

Yeah. Proprietary software is dead! Along with incandescent lightbulbs, the English system, walking, and fossil fuels!

Oh, wait...

Re:So lemme see if I got this right (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | about 8 years ago | (#16641327)

You're analysing the future, and as far as I'm aware, the future hasn't happened yet.

Oracle is dreaming (3, Insightful)

t482 (193197) | about 8 years ago | (#16640979)

If they think that their sales people will be worried about $1000 operating systems when they are selling $1 million dollar software packages (Big Iron Oracle @ 50K a CPU or Siebel).

Nothing will happen - and if you jumped into RH stock you could have made a quick 15% as it over reacted to the news.

1) Things will go on as normal - RH has more to fear from Ubuntu (teamed up with say IBM or HP)
2) Oracle will make noise and keep seeing their DB market share be destroyed by MS SQL server (which is cheap and good enough for many applications)
3) Oracle will go back to hocking APP servers - and making those buying the server buy Oracle DBs.
4) Redhat will have moderate success selling a beefed up Postgresql

Re:Oracle is dreaming (1)

marktoml (48712) | about 8 years ago | (#16642097)

>2) Oracle will make noise and keep seeing their DB market share be destroyed by MS SQL server (which is cheap and good enough for many applications)

Keep...wha...?

Destroyed? Yes, I'll keep my eye open for a ding in their sales... Not arguing the premise, but it sure hasn't happened yet.

OTOH, I think you are largely correct about the impact to RH, this was a bit of an overraction by investors.

Re:Oracle is dreaming (3, Insightful)

burnin1965 (535071) | about 8 years ago | (#16642113)


1) Things will go on as normal


Couldn't have said it better myself.

When Novell purchased SuSE supposedly Red Hat was doomed because Novell was better positioned to bring linux to the enterprise. Red Hat continued to be the leading provider of linux to the enterprise.

When Sun open sourced Solaris Red Hat was doomed because Sun knows the enterprise and Solaris is a better linux than linux. Red Hat continued to be the leading provider of linux to the enterprise.

When Sun annouced that they would make Ubuntu linux enterprise ready then linux would finally be ready for the enterprise and Red Hat's end was near. And Red Hat continued to be the leading provider of linux to the enterprise.

Now Ellison's monsterous ego is lumbering through the market hunting down Red Hat to finally squash it because Oracle has ... lots of money. And guess what will happen, Red Hat will continue to be the leading provider of linux to the enterprise.

I think the key commonality in all these situations is that we have three closed source proprietary vendors who have been forced into accepting open source, sometimes kicking and screaming, as a significant part of the software stack their businesses rely on, but in the case of Red Hat they are an open source company.

Oh, and just as a side note for anyone reading this, that article started off with quite the ignorant flaimbait claims. Oracle cannot and will not be removing Red Hat copyrights from linux, they will be removing trademarks. Red Hat has licensed their copyrights on the code under the GPL and those copyrights will remain. And I'm not so sure about the author's claim that Red Hat said there would be hardware incompatibility, I think what they said is any changes to the code in the distribution would invalidate any certifications.

burnin

Re:Oracle is dreaming (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16643543)

> 2) Oracle will make noise and keep seeing their DB market share be
> destroyed by MS SQL server (which is cheap and good enough for many
> applications)

This is a MYTH. For enterprise deployments, depending on the features
you need, MS SQL server MIGHT be cheaper. Even then it could only be
somewhat cheaper versus the dramatic difference that is often claimed.

This is on the high end of things. On the low end of things, you can
get a non-personal/non-express copy of Oracle for just a little bit
more than you would pay for an msoffice full install.

If you aren't running amazon.com Oracle can actually be quite cheap.

Is this the end of the OSS "Sell the Support" mode (1)

demallien2 (991621) | about 8 years ago | (#16641085)

It has always seemed relatively obvious to me that most OSS software companies are vulnerable to this type of attack mounted by a large proprietary software vendor. Take the software (which, at the end of the day is where the real value is), and offer support, but without undertaking any of the major development tasks (only do bugfixes). The OSS competitor has two choices: continue to do R&D work on the product, to keep it advancing, and accepting that they can't sell support as cheaply as the "bug-fix only" proprietary vendor, or stop doing R&D themselves, so that they can be cost-competitive. Of course the disadvantage of this approach is that the product quickly falls behind proprietary offerings....

This is not going to be an easy battle for Redhat. I suspect they are going to have to find a new business model if they are to survive.

Re:Is this the end of the OSS "Sell the Support" m (2, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | about 8 years ago | (#16641517)

"but without undertaking any of the major development tasks (only do bugfixes)."

The value of the support is directly related to the level of development. As a customer, once you are hit by a bug, you'd presumably want to get it fixed, and the closer to the development the support provider is, the better they will be at fixing the bugs.

Would you pay Oracle for a support contract, only to find out they're not going to fix your bugs, they'll wait until the upstream does it? Or that they'll fix them bug, but the next resync with upstream will reintroduce it? Or even worse bugs, if the upstream produces incompatible fixes?

Can you even imagine the nightmare of trying to maintain a patch tree while engaged in hostilities towards the upstream? Can you imagine the havoc they could wreck on your patches? Would you volunteer to maintain patches when any upstream change will mean a total reject of your patches, or even worse, subtle changes in variable names and uses that do everything from cause crashes to corrupting data? There's a reason people fork OSS projects.

From what Ellison spouts it sounds like Oracle wants a free ride and has just failed to notice you cant get a free ride. Either Oracle will have to fork completely, or they'll have to maintain an amicable relationship with Red Hat. Which probably means carrying their own weight. Which means that Red Hat gains as much free patches from Oracle as Oracle does from them.

"This is not going to be an easy battle for Redhat."

Oracle offers a subset of Red Hat support at a slight discount. Red Hat offers replacements for much of Oracles stack at a minute fraction of the price. I fail to see why Red Hat would be the one that has anything to be worried about.

Re:Is this the end of the OSS "Sell the Support" m (2, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 8 years ago | (#16641787)

``It has always seemed relatively obvious to me that most OSS software companies are vulnerable to this type of attack mounted by a large proprietary software vendor. Take the software (which, at the end of the day is where the real value is),''

I'm not so sure the real value is in the software. People and, especially, companies seem to be willing to pay more for support contracts than for software. They'll even take inferior software over superior software if they can get a support contract that way.

``and offer support, but without undertaking any of the major development tasks (only do bugfixes).

The OSS competitor has two choices: continue to do R&D work on the product, to keep it advancing, and accepting that they can't sell support as cheaply as the "bug-fix only" proprietary vendor, or stop doing R&D themselves, so that they can be cost-competitive. Of course the disadvantage of this approach is that the product quickly falls behind proprietary offerings....''

The "bug-fix only" vendor has the same problem: if nobody does R&D on the product, eventually, nobody will want to pay even for the support contracts. So they have an incentive to continue the R&D.

Also, when the product is under the GPL, everyone enhancing it and distributing the enhanced version is required to make the enhancements available to the world, so R&D will continue as long as _someone_ is doing the work. The incentive for doing the work may be other than monetary, and, in fact, a lot of what OSS is today has been done by volunteers.

``This is not going to be an easy battle for Redhat. I suspect they are going to have to find a new business model if they are to survive.''

They can, and do, include proprietary code in their product and charge for that.

Re:Is this the end of the OSS "Sell the Support" m (1)

demallien2 (991621) | about 8 years ago | (#16642237)

Think of it this way - if someone gives you Fedora without support, you can probably still do what you needed to do. If someone gives you Redhat Support, without actually giving you Redhat, you can't do anything except talk to the Support Line all day. That's what I meant by the value really being in the software.

As for development, the thing is that Oracle can cheat. Do bugfixes, writing test cases for each bug fixed as you go. Do this for two years, then go and pilfer the OSS community again a couple of years later, when you want a new release. If Oracle plays it's cards right, they will have submitted bug reports to the OSS community along the way, along with their own fixes.... A good percentage of those are going to get picked up in the official OSS code.

When the time to create a new release comes, they run the test cases to identify if known bugs have been "re-introduced". Those should be relatively quick to fix, and Oracle gets to stay relatively close to the latest stuff out there.

IMO, this is manageable, and way cheaper than doing the R&D type stuff that Redhat does for Linux.

Re:Is this the end of the OSS "Sell the Support" m (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 7 years ago | (#16645237)

Think of it this way - if someone gives you Fedora without support, you can probably still do what you needed to do. If someone gives you Redhat Support, without actually giving you Redhat, you can't do anything except talk to the Support Line all day. That's what I meant by the value really being in the software.

Your problem is that you only consider the technical side of the argument, that is not how business decisions are taken howver.

No, for some of my customers Fedora is not an option even if it works technically for the simple reason that it lacks certifications they need and because it does not come with the kind of support on which you can build an SLA.

Getting support on a product you are not using makes no sense, so that part of your argument is nonsensical.

A business owner disagrees (0, Troll)

NineNine (235196) | about 8 years ago | (#16642345)


I'm not so sure the real value is in the software. People and, especially, companies seem to be willing to pay more for support contracts than for software. They'll even take inferior software over superior software if they can get a support contract that way.

 
I own a small-ish business. In no way, shape, or form, is support more important to me than quality software. If I have to make support calls, that's lost time and money. The second software malfunctions, is the second you start losing money. No question about it. I will pay multiples more for a product that requires little to no support, than I will for a product that has good support.

The only reason a product needs support is because it's not good enough to be used without support. So by definition, a better product requires less support than a product (that does the same thing) that requires support. There's no value in support. Support is purely a cost, and an avoidable one at that.

In the case of somebody like Red Hat, there's simply no way I'd ever use the product (at least for our desktops... our server stuff is outsourced). I don't care if I can get a literate, English speaking person on the phone instantly 24/7 via a toll-free number. I don't care if the company will teleport a support person to my company within one minute of needing help. That's not nearly as good as using a product that doesn't require support.

Re:A business owner disagrees (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 8 years ago | (#16643051)

And yet, you are one of the very few in the porn industry running Windows. So, obviously superior software does not matter to you. Your religion does.

Re:A business owner disagrees (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 7 years ago | (#16645391)

I own a small-ish business. In no way, shape, or form, is support more important to me than quality software. If I have to make support calls, that's lost time and money. The second software malfunctions, is the second you start losing money. No question about it. I will pay multiples more for a product that requires little to no support, than I will for a product that has good support.

Good support does not compensate lack of quality, absolutely true.

That said, there is no bugfree software, it is a theoretical impossibility, and as a consequence there will be times when you need support. It better be good when you need it.

When you are not a small business, you get to deal with lots of additional issues, and a 'cover my ass' type of support contract is rather desirable there, esp. when your 'expert' employee(s) just decided they found a better job, ended up under a train, jumped from the nearest tower, or become permanently unavailable for other reasons.

False starts and bad technical decisions (1)

dustwun (662589) | about 8 years ago | (#16641125)

There's been a fair amount about this in the news recently (and by 'news' I mean slashdot) but it's been discussed and kicked around in some rather interesting detail elsewhere also. Oracle seems to be pulling from other projects already involved in RHEL rebuilds like centos. They're not even bothering to clean up some of the centos release tags. See http://oss.oracle.com/linux/legal/oracle-list.html [oracle.com] for verification and look at the artwork package to see what I'm talking about.

There's also some indication that oracle's initial effort wasn't really tested that thoroughly and has some breakage issues. See http://ultramookie.com/wayback/2006/10/26/uncompat ible-linux/ [ultramookie.com] and a comment to that post http://ultramookie.com/wayback/2006/10/26/uncompat ible-linux/#comment-5386 [ultramookie.com] for all the gory details on this. So far I'm completely unimpressed with oracle's offering, and they'd better get their act together if they want this to be anything more than a corporate money-pit. So far it seems rushed, half-baked and unready (not unbreakable). I for one will be sticking with RH for my corporate support, and I will urge others who require redhat support to do the same.

Oracle might succeed if... (3, Insightful)

vhogemann (797994) | about 8 years ago | (#16641135)

..they drop this "Enterprize Linux" idea, and instead focus on a Appliance approach.

As I pointed before (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=203218&cid=16 621458), Oracle did a very poor job cloning Fedora. And I really doubt that they have enought in-house knowledge to mantain a full fledged Linux distro.

Also, why on earth they want to offer a full distro anyways? It make a lot more sense to build a minimal distro, and wrap it around OracleDB! Every Oracle install out there already uses a dedicated machine, include a OS with the darned thing, and installation will be incredibly simplified. They should be teaming with RedHat, for support and R&D on this slimmed Linux!

Hell, even if they don't want to make business with RedHat, at least hire some CentOS developers to put together a decent distro!

Re:Oracle might succeed if... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 years ago | (#16641625)

how about stopping the rampant mental deficiency in decisions they currently have?

Partner with a Linux distro... Novell or Red hat, announce that this is the only official supported oracle platform and make it work.

You have an expert company working on the distro, you can focus on your product and compatibility. and everyone wins with minimal expense.

Are the suits at oracle that stupid they do not see the advantages going that route?

Re:Oracle might succeed if... (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | about 8 years ago | (#16641637)

Hell, even if they don't want to make business with RedHat, at least hire some CentOS developers to put together a decent distro!

Are you sure they haven't?

Re:Oracle might succeed if... (0)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 8 years ago | (#16642291)

> Oracle did a very poor job cloning Fedora. And I really doubt that they have
> enought in-house knowledge to mantain a full fledged Linux distro.

Oracle is a $30b company with $10b/year profits. This is not mySql were talking about here. Apple hired the braintrust of BSD to head their OSX support. Oracle can easily afford to do the same for Linux. Is it a business objective? Well, that I can't answer.

jfs

It's all spin: Oracle has insignificant control (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 8 years ago | (#16641179)

At best, Oracle can start to build their market. To believe the PR spin, you'd think they'd been kernel hackers from say, 1991. In fact, that's not true. While RHEL is competitive, remember that is free-open-source-software, and Oracle makes not a dime from that. Like RH, they'll add services, interesting apps, research, and perhaps a groupie audience with a Fedora-like effort, or that of OpenSUSE.

If you let Oracle achieve their 'marketshare' from thin air, you're doing injustice to hundreds of thousands of coders that have been evolving the kernel, GNU apps, and lots of interesting and useful apps-- that aren't poised strictly to sell a money maker- in this case the Oracle db.

Yes, Oracle has a powerful sales machine, even legendary. That Oracle now deigns fit to 'sanctify' Linux is more of a johnny-come-lately move while MySQL and PGRE eat their lunch. They also face enormous obstacles with IBM and its alliance with SUSE-- especially overseas. Don't let the marketing kiddies fool you.

Oracle support system down under DOS? (1)

lostatredrock (972881) | about 8 years ago | (#16641207)

Not sure if this is a just a coincidence or not, but it looks like Oracle's support system Metalink is unavailable at the moment with the error message:

Urgent: Potential Performance and Login Problems -
Please note that due to heaver than normal activity during peak hours, you may experience performance and login related issues. This is a temporary situation that we are working to resolve.

Someone trying to convince consumers that Oracle Support is not quite up to the task perhaps?

They might be in different Market (2, Insightful)

HighOrbit (631451) | about 8 years ago | (#16641293)

If Oracle is going after the general purpose linux server market, then RedHat has a problem. But I think most people would use Oracle Linux as a platform for Oracle DB, not as a general purpose box. In that case, Oracle will only be taking a small portion of RH's market. Usually, an Oracle installation is on a dedicated machine, so I don't expect to see Oracle Linux serving a lot of public webpages or used as a desktop. The only reason I can think of somebody using Oracle Linux for general purpose is if they have a specific policy of limiting the number of OSes to keep support cost down and they already sunk money into Oracle.

This really hurts Sun, because Solaris is the traditional Oracle platform of choice. Now Linux will be the platform of choice for Oracle. If Oracle makes clustering and failover really easy (as an added value over a simple RH respin), then Sun will take a real beating beause you would be able to replace that good-ol'-solid-and-reliable Sparc monster with a cluster of cheap pre-configured Oracle Linux boxes (instead of buying the next generation of Sun).

Re:They might be in different Market (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 8 years ago | (#16642971)

This really hurts Sun, because Solaris is the traditional Oracle platform of choice. Now Linux will be the platform of choice for Oracle. If Oracle makes clustering and failover really easy (as an added value over a simple RH respin), then Sun will take a real beating beause you would be able to replace that good-ol'-solid-and-reliable Sparc monster with a cluster of cheap pre-configured Oracle Linux boxes (instead of buying the next generation of Sun).

This begs the question, "Why didn't Oracle choose to develop an Oracle centric distribution of Open Solaris"?

No it doesn't... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 8 years ago | (#16643363)

It does not *beg* the question, it *raises* the question.

And no I won't accept 'modern' usage, dammit I want it to mean what it originally meant.

The question *raised* is probably simply answered by Oracle's marketing having the perception that the linux market is where the growth is. Also, on the technical front linux enjoys a much larger open development community to leverage, whereas Open Solaris doesn't have that much of an attach rate from the community.

Why Red Hat then? (2, Interesting)

krico (678909) | about 8 years ago | (#16641317)

The main reason for choosing Red Hat as a distribution is usually the "security and hardware certificatations". Oracle should either find a way of provinding that or otherwise use some other distribution. Debian would certainly profit very much if chosen for this ;-)

If ever there was a time... (1)

sam991 (995040) | about 8 years ago | (#16641465)

Khaaaan! [khaaan.com]

ORACLE'S OWN VIETNAM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16641479)

mark my words! what we have here is oracle's vietnam! it's gonna be a long battle and you can not win. feel free to use "oracle's vietnam" anagram in your publications. these are historical words i said and will be quoted million times thus i want to remain anonymous.

Why do I, as a customer care? Forking? (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 8 years ago | (#16641541)

I'm not sure I do unless RH is harmed to the point that it no longer can support or develop any code that ISN'T joined at the hip to Oracle applications. See? I really don't care either way unless my RH servers can no longer support anyone else's application because let's face facts - it's unlikely that Oracle will make generalized RH code that is 'best' for Oracle apps and 'best' for everyone else too. In other words isn't this going to result in another RH fork?

Just a quick note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16642083)

The one thing that most of you have in common with Larry Ellison is that you're a bunch of idiots. Yeah, I know he is worth 20 billion USD and I am worth about 20 dollars. Irrespective.

Companies are not going to switch to Oracle support simply because Larry says it's a couple of hundred dollars cheaper. Oracle has no presence in Linux, no history to speak of. Why should anyone trust them? Remember their "Unbreakable" compaign, their "war" with BEA over app servers? Where is that now? It's irrelevent, WebSphere has quietly overtaken the J2EE market right under Oracle's nose, how many companies have migrated their infrstructure to Oracle thanks to its unbreakable campaign? Virtually none.

Oracle is doing this to spite Redhat, why, because Redhat bought JBoss and that got under Larry's skin. If you move your IT infrastructure to Oracle knowing they are providing a service out of spite then you don't have much future in this industry.

Who is that pot smoker posting that this is bad new for Sun? Which idiot CTO is going to migrate a multi million dollar Oracle data centre installation to an unproven distribution with an unproven support service? If this was your dinky toy php mysql website then you have a point, but a data centre? Please, we will talk when you are sober again.

I can also imagine the Oracle sales reps falling over themselves to sell Linux support. Imagine last week you sold a support contract to BigBankXXX for $ 50 000 per CPU core - this week you just sold a Linux support contract to BigBankYYY for $ 99 per server. Yipeee!!!

Put yourself in a CTO's position, sure they think Oracle support on Linux is a good thing, then they look at their Oracle installations and remember the licence fees they pay. Then they look at the Oracle DBA's and remember the huge amount they have to pay to support the DB. Then they think again - that's all Redhat needs.

OH no! (1)

mseidl (828824) | about 8 years ago | (#16642103)

All your database are belong to Oracle!

Would you work at Oracle? (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | about 8 years ago | (#16642173)

There are many people reading this who have the skills necessary to work on Linux as an Oracle employee. My question is: would you consider it? I've interviewed a fair number of Oracle employees in the past 6 months and many of them complain that the corporate headquarters in Redwood Shores is no longer a place to innovate. Most software development is now being done in India. The Redwood Shores staff is mostly engaged in integrating technology from the constant stream of acquisitions.

Re:Would you work at Oracle? (1)

thelifter (1017186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16643585)

Oracle's all about marketing these days and they are becoming yet another company so deluded that they don't see the ever increasing impedence mismatch between management will and technical reality. They're not focused on quality. They don't take pride in their work and I certainly wouldn't work at Oracle for any amount of money.

ep\... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16642311)

has ground to a are inherently NIIGER ASSOCIATION

Oracle merely preparing for a take-over? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 7 years ago | (#16644213)

Has anyone considered that Oracle is merely pressing down the price of RHAT stock in order to later buy out the company?

Overlords (1)

trupoet (114382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16645303)

I for one, welcome our 'Unbreakable' Overlords.....

ELLISON'S DREAM WORLD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16645369)

In Larry Ellison Dreamland, databases are the dominating factor in datacenters and whoever controls that should control the OS.

Having worked in several datacenters, I can tell you that in most of them databases are important but they are hardly the only application being run. An OS is selected in a datacenter for it's ability to support many applications. My current place of employment is strong on Solaris and RHEL. Would we add a 3rd OS called Unbreakable Linux just because Larry Ellison has a hard-on about OS'es? I don't think so. We have mail-servers and many other applications to support besides just his frigging baby Oracle. I know an Oracle DBA or two who can tell you about their poor security situation so I wouldn't trust them with making UNBREAKABLE anything. But anyhow, if you make hammers I guess you think everybody else uses hammers all day long and that's the most important thing in the world to base your toolbox around.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?