×

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's Take On Red Hat Linux

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the more-of-a-flavor-than-a-distro dept.

Oracle 165

darthcamaro writes "For nearly three years, Oracle has had its own version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, claiming the two versions are essentially the same thing. But are they really? As it turns out, there are a few things on which Oracle and Red Hat do not see eye-to-eye, including file systems and virtualization. The article quotes Wim Coekaerts, Oracle's director of Linux engineering, saying, 'A lot of people think Oracle is doing Enterprise Linux as just basically a rip off of Red Hat but that's not what this is about. ... This is about a support program, and wanting to offer quality Linux OS support to customers that need it. The Linux distribution part is there just to make sure people can get a freely available Linux operating system that is fully supported.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

165 comments

Total Flamebait (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275693)

This is great. When the only thing differentiating Redhat from Oracle is service, Redhat will win because they are the ones actually creating the product. If there is any single company that I'd like to see pushed into the ground by open source, it is Oracle. Whereas Microsoft is kind of a bumbling giant that can't quite get things right but gets by on chair throwing, Oracle is downright evil. They will actively destroy another company if it makes them a cent.

On the other hand, Oracle is much less likely to go under because they produce other things of value that the open source community will have difficulty replacing (because we don't do much business software).

ORACLE (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275721)

One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison...

Re:ORACLE (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276563)

Not so much any more, but in the early seasons of Smallville, Lionel Luthor kept reminding me of Larry Ellison, only with longer hair.

Re:Total Flamebait (5, Insightful)

aralin (107264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276015)

This has nothing to do with who makes the product. It is entirely a support issue. Lets say you have a problem with your Oracle solution on Solaris or RedHat Linux. Oracle will look at the problem and determine it is an OS problem and so you go to Sun or RedHat and they say this is after all not an OS problem, but a virtualization problem so you go to third provider, who will find out that finally fixes the problem two day and several millions in lost profit later.

If you can have one provider who will offer support for the entire stack, OS, virtualization, database or middleware engine, you have a huge win on your hands. Premium contracts can have time limits which now don't cover just one layer, but the entire stack. The same company will resolve the problem no matter where it lies and they are responsible by the service contract to resolve the problem. Where the problem actually lies is an internal issue you don't need to care about.

When you add to it that business talks are done with single company, which results in time savings and you usually save by bundling the service contracts into one package as well. this is almost a no brainer that customer actually demand this.

Add to it that RedHat is not binary free product, that you actually have to pay for the binary distribution of enterprise version, and that Oracle will basically save you additional money by compiling RedHat linux from sources for you.

Redhat has a huge edge for servers not using Oracle database or middleware, but for servers actually running Oracle products, it is no brainer to go with a full stack support contract.

Re:Total Flamebait (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276339)

It's also a very smart business move by Oracle. Pushing free operating systems running on commodity hardware allows Oracle to reduce the price of an Oracle based solution without reducing Oracle's revenue. That's business savvy.

Re:Total Flamebait (0, Flamebait)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277461)

No it isn't smart. It's just very short-sighted, the same way that lots of "smart" things being done in financials the last ten years were just very short-sighted.

You get what you give.

Re:Total Flamebait (0, Redundant)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277815)

Explain? I can't decide if your post is cryptically insightful or just content-free aside from a vague, zeitgeist-ish, anti-corporate rant.

Re:Total Flamebait (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276361)

Disclaimer: Posting anon because I work for Red Hat. A profound event occured with an Oracle employee and I a few days ago after the latest round of negotiations:

This incident occurred one day when we were driving along a little-traveled highway miles from the Oracle complex in San Francisco. After we stopped at a rest area, A man with a huge stud nigger on a leash got out of a car. He took the nigger to a nearby tree and tied the nigger to it. We asked the man what he was doing to the poor nigger. He explained that he and his family were moving out of state and they couldn't take the nigger with them. Since none of his friends could take the nigger, he was going to leave it here in hopes that someone would give it a home.

I reached over and petted the nigger's stomach, my hand accidentally touched his genital area. The nigger suddenly stopped monkeying around and he began to pant plaintively. I smiled at him, thinking that he would let it go, but then he rubbed his hand along his penis sheath. I was shocked when his large black dick started to emerge from its hiding place. He again started making a noise, but it was very different than the ooking and eeking had made moments before.

"You're reading my mind, aren't you Jenny?", said the Oracle representative. I thought about it for a moment and then walked over to the nigger. He climbed up on my hips at once and wrapped his front paws tightly around my stomach and humped his prick straight toward my vaginal opening.

He pumped his semen into me for what seemed like an eternity, filling up my cunt, the overflow pouring out onto my ass and down my legs. I felt a huge bulge expanding in my cunt. I tried to pull away, but the knot that had formed in his cock locked us in position.

He growled deep in this throat, warning me not to move. I was afraid of upsetting him, as I didn't want him to bite me or beat me like Chris Brown beat Rihanna. His knot deflated moments later and his cock slipped easily out of my dialated, sopping hole. I lost consciousness shortly thereafter.

When I came to, I looked around and realized that the Oracle representative and the nigger had disappeared. I wearily got to my feet, replaced my clothing and ran to where my car had been parked. It was gone! Red Hat had taken my car with the damn nigger as well as my laptop with the trade secrets! I burst into tears, vowing to never trust Oracle products for the rest of my life.

Re:Total Flamebait (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277175)

Misinformation extradorinaire!

RedHat is binary free. You can download any current distribution of RedHat compiled. With some hunting around, you might even find the old ones. What you can't expect is for them to make available the binaries for the patches and bugfixes for that distribution.

Without the binaries for the patches and bugfixes, it is still binary free. You just have to use the rpm build system and do a lot of rpmbuild --rebuild to get the binaries. Failure to do so on your part is not lack of freedom, it's laziness.

RedHat doesn't point the finger at someone else and say "We can't fix it due to him!" There is a reason RedHat supplies so much back to the open source community and a lot of it has to do with supporting their customers.

From both of your statements, I'd wager that you've never paid for a RedHat product; or if you did, you never bothered to register it.

Oracle wants an operating system that's specifically tuned for it's product. That's great if all you intend to do is run Oracle on it, but most people eventually use their system for something else too. Then the tuning doesn't pay off, it works against you.

I remember the earliest Oracle installations, there were so many tweaks and configuration changes to the kernel, shared memory, enabled extensions, ... it seemed to go on forever. If Oracle had it's way, I'd imagine that they would eventually turn a PC into an embedded Oracle server. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you are in the business of selling full operating systems, like RedHat is.

Perhaps Oracle's treatment of Linux has changed a bit, but I'm not holding my breath. Old dogs use tried-but-true old tricks. Since Oracle still hasn't seen fit to rewrite their init.d stuff to be half sane, I doubt they are concerned about being friendly to others on a Linux server.

Re:Total Flamebait (2, Interesting)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277405)

Well, you know, if I start wanting to do something else with the hardware, I can always install RedHat. (And probably migrate to postgresql.)

The one thing that bugs me about Oracle's customization of RedHat is the question of whether they are giving back, both to RedHat and to the community. Maybe I don't look in the right places to know, but it sure isn't obvious that they do.

Actually, I'll go a little further and put it this way: From a potential customer's point of view, if I'm going to dedicate a lot of my infrastructure budget to Oracle's products, I would be a lot more comfortable if I knew that Oracle and RedHat had a good working relationship, both technically and economically.

(Cannibalizing the market is really not in a company's own best interests, any more than relying on the schoolyard bully to protect you is.)

Re:Total Flamebait (4, Interesting)

MoreDruid (584251) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277465)

Yes you get support from 1 vendor, however I recently had to deal with that vendor. There was already a support case, all kinds of log files uploaded for them to analyse and after 1,5 week they hadn't found the issue yet. What was the problem? at 4:20 every night 1 of the servers in a cluster of 4 went down. The issue was that updatedb was configured to run on OCFS filesystems, and updatedb is triggered by cron.daily. They had about 5 different engineers looking at our case. No solution, until someone from my company decided to dig a little further into the updatedb config. It seems that you shouldn't run updatedb on OCFS filesystems (we have another customer who has been doing that for more than half a year with way more nodes concurrently connected, but hey). Note: this happened after issuing a Oracle CRS (cluster software) update, the config had been running fine for more than a year. And Oracle support just kept on looking to the Oracle part, ignoring the OS stack. From Oracle Applications support I was told to "just update glibc from 3.2 to 4.x because there's a bug that's fixed in 3.6". Right. Break compatibility with all your major tooling and applications so you can run an Oracle App because they've been too lazy to test in an "old" environment (RHEL 4 U4).

In short: I'd rather deal with 2 or 3 independent vendors who know their shit (and know it well), than with 1 vendor who would - even when told differently - kept looking from the wrong POV.

Re:Total Flamebait (1)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277619)

I gotta say thats what I've always found with paid-for support, if you want the job done right, do it yourself.

Just the other week I had a problem with a certain piece of software we had bought to pentest a pretty dated operating system, after about 3 weeks of uploading logs and changing configs and turning on debugging for the "tech support" at both the software vendor and the OS vendor, I decided to have an in-depth look at the problem.

Guess what? Identified and solved the problem in about an hour.

And as far as Oracle goes, they should just make all their bloody shared memory and kernel tuning "enhancements" (that tend to break everything but Oracle) into a shell script or RPM and leave RHEL alone, its not as if the changes they make are enough to warrant a complete OS rebuild; they're doing it just to stick it to RedHat as there are some PHB's and DBA's who actually will use Oracle Unbreakable.

Re:Total Flamebait (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276353)

Have you ever actually used RedHat support? Judging from my experience with their support quality, it seems they are only interested in supporting new installation problems for small businesses and thats it.

Traditional high-end enterprise support from Sun and Oracle makes Red Hat look like the "small time" shop they are.

Re:Total Flamebait (3, Insightful)

wireloose (759042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276517)

In my job, I am supporting both versions, RedHat and "Oracle." I get better support from RedHat. It's enough better that I have gotten away with converting several of the "Oracle" servers over to RedHat. There are still a few, but a few less every year.

cant we already get free and support with centos? (3, Insightful)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275711)

i've never bothered to look at oracle linux, because i can get 'free' redhat through centos, and when i want paid support, i can get it directly through redhat.

without some other differentiation, what is oracle providing that isnt there from the others?

so yes, it is just a rip off of red hat.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (3, Informative)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275751)

Oracle Cluster File System. Whether you need it or not is up to you. Oracle also provides OCFS modules for Red Hat to make it easy on people.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276737)

Oracle Cluster Fuck System? No thanks! I'll keep on using the non-cluster-fuck version of oracle. At least then it's only one fucking.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275847)

i've never bothered to look at oracle linux, because i can get 'free' redhat through centos, and when i want paid support, i can get it directly through redhat.

without some other differentiation, what is oracle providing that isnt there from the others?

so yes, it is just a rip off of red hat.

Um, no you can't. Red Hat does not support CentOS.

PS - it's 'Red Hat'.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (2, Informative)

Wakk013 (922235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275859)

There is a free version of Oracle available. Its not licensed in any way. However if you go over their max data limit, then you have to purchase a version of Oracle.
Also, RedHat and CentOS are the same product. They are the same source code: RedHat compiled by RedHat, and CentOS compiled by open source community. This allows RedHat to get more exposure and most of the bugs found in CentOS can be patched back into RedHat.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277389)

But CentOS is in no way affiliated with Red Hat. All they share is the code. CentOS is fine if you want to go the free route but redhat is pretty cheap. We order Red Hat licenses by the dozen for our University. All Oracle servers here run on Sun because of legacy I guess.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (2, Insightful)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277507)

Right. If you can't afford support you don't need and you can't afford the time Fedora takes, CentOS is great.

Ordering red hat licenses is one way to make sure the OS is still there for you next year. If you're using it in business and making much profit (or just saving money) by using their data products, you should be recognizing that you need to give them (or canonical or one of the others) money because you need them to be there next year.

Same with feeding bugs back by using Fedora. If you rely on the OS as a tool in your job, you want to help keep the project alive and healthy.

So, actually, even if you are using CentOS, your self-interest will induce you to support the community in whatever ways you can afford to, maybe even just by helping others start using open source.

(And while it would actually make sense for Oracle to have their own distribution based on Red Hat, it does not make sense for them to be effectively dissing Red Hat. Unless, I suppose, their share-holders and/or primary customers expect Ellison to put on the dog.)

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276365)

what about the btrfs filesystem? doesn't that do block level dedupe ? that's a very exciting feature IMO

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (1)

nprz (1210658) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276593)

Except that it is not ready for use beyond benchmark and review.
I tried it and like it. It is still missing removal of snapshots though. Without that, you will ultimately end up with a full disk.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (4, Informative)

baileydau (1037622) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276371)

i've never bothered to look at oracle linux, because i can get 'free' redhat through centos, and when i want paid support, i can get it directly through redhat.

without some other differentiation, what is oracle providing that isnt there from the others?

so yes, it is just a rip off of red hat.

You would ONLY use Oracle Linux to run your Oracle products on. You wouldn't use it for your file and print, or web server. They wouldn't want you to anyway.

It's largely a marketing thing. If you run your Oracle products on Oracle Linux, Oracle will support the entire software stack. That can be important to a lot of enterprise customers, no turf wars about who's fault it isn't.

As a bonus, the Oracle Linux support contract is (and should be) significantly cheaper than Red Hat (or Novell - the other supported Linux vendor). This is because they really only support those functions that are required to run the Oracle products. They aren't interested in supporting your file and print server etc. Whereas Red Hat and Novell have to support everything.

Can you imagine what Oracle would say if you had an issue that was borderline Oracle / OS and you were running CentOS? Even though CentOS is a re-badged Red Hat, it isn't Red Hat, and it isn't on Oracle's supported OS list.

The sensible thing to do would be to run Oracle Linux for your Oracle products and Red Hat (or CentOS if you didn't want support) for everything else. As they are all virtually the same, it's a lot easier for your administrators.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (1, Insightful)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277249)

The sensible thing to do would be to run Oracle Linux for your Oracle products and Red Hat (or CentOS if you didn't want support) for everything else. As they are all virtually the same, it's a lot easier for your administrators.

IMHO, the really sensible thing to do is not run oracle products at all. even the bea purchase and rebadging of the weblogic/aqualogic app server doesnt change that.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277583)

So what enterprise class DB would you run instead?

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (2, Informative)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277757)

So what enterprise class DB would you run instead?

PostgreSQL, unless there is some feature PostgreSQL is missing that I would need for the given application in the foreseeable future.

Re:cant we already get free and support with cento (2, Interesting)

MoreDruid (584251) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277485)

That's the point: they are definately NOT the same. Yes, its based on Red Hat, but there are so many differences on Unbreakable Linux (here we call it Broken Linux) that annoy the hell out of you. The cluster application Oracle sold to our customer is not cluster aware (how did they do that?), furthermore the cluster service needs to be restarted when a node goes down (WTF? what's the point in having a cluster if one of your nodes can't fail???) and there are more diffences and issues. I've worked with it over half a year now. I've only had issues for those past 8 months with those Unbreakable Linux systems. In the meantime a cluster 3x larger - and much heavier used - is running without a hitch on a Red Hat base install and the same whole Oracle shebang on top of it. Go figure.

Um, (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275723)

Um, so basically it is a rip off of Red Hat just with Red Hat stripped out and Oracle's own filesystem added to the kernel, with a different VM. Thats it. Still maintains binary compatibility, etc. This is basically like someone trying to justify that Linux Mint is some grand new distribution when it is nothing more then Ubuntu with a few extra tweaks and drivers added.

Re:Um, (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27275885)

Um, so basically it is a rip off of Red Hat just with Red Hat stripped out and Oracle's own filesystem added to the kernel

No no no no no.

The default filesystem shipped with RHEL and OUL is ext3. The clustered file-system shipped with RHEL is GFS, and with OUL it is OCFS2. OCFS2 is not compiled in-kernel within Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and must be mod-probed in as a separate - unsupported by Red Hat - module.

> with a different VM.

Again, wrong. RHEL 5 ships with Xen, and will support Xen until at least 2014. OUL also ships with Xen. Please remember, KVM has not shipped in *any* RHEL release (major or minor) yet. Only Red Hat internally knows the release agenda.

> Thats it. Still maintains binary compatibility, > etc.

Oracle's binary compatibility claims are a myth.

Re:Um, (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275977)

Please remember, KVM has not shipped in *any* RHEL release (major or minor) yet. Only Red Hat internally knows the release agenda.

Apparently they will release their KVM based vitalization before the management tools run on anything other than Windows 2003. That's what they got from Qumranet and that's why I won't be using it.

KVM is going to be slower than XEN unless you have a super-duper-mega-new CPU with Intel EPT or AMD RVI support.

Re:Um, (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276659)

Apparently they will release their KVM based vitalization before the management tools run on anything other than Windows 2003. That's what they got from Qumranet and that's why I won't be using it.

[ citation needed ]

Seriously, I don't even think KVM runs on Windows at all.

KVM is going to be slower than XEN unless you have a super-duper-mega-new CPU with Intel EPT or AMD RVI support.

You mean like any CPU either have released in oh... about the past 3 years?

Re:Um, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276973)

> Seriously, I don't even think KVM runs on Windows
> at all.

The OP is correct. They are referring to RHEV for Servers: http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2009/agenda.html

Xen is a big deal (3, Interesting)

btarval (874919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276709)

"Again, wrong. RHEL 5 ships with Xen, and will support Xen until at least 2014. OUL also ships with Xen. Please remember, KVM has not shipped in *any* RHEL release (major or minor) yet. Only Red Hat internally knows the release agenda."

I hate to correct an otherwise good post, but that is at best misleading, and at worst just plain wrong. Redhat has announced that they are only going to support existing Xen installations, while providing a way to migrate to KVM.

Xen is dead with Redhat. At least for now.

Personally, I think this is a major screwup by RH, as I know of sites which had been stongly RH but are now looking at dropping them. Sorry, KVM just isn't ready for serious primetime. What's worse, is that the majority of Virtualization research out there is centered around Xen, for the simple fact that it's been around longer.

So Xen is the focus of the next generation of technology, and will remain that way for a while.

And before the KVM fanatics jump up shouting the usual "but-it's-faster!" mantra, you should be aware that Type II hypervisor support (ala KVM) was announced a couple weeks ago at the Xen Summit (at Oracle's HQ, btw).

So one can either choose a KVM type of hypervisor, or the original Xen hypervisor.

Oh, and I heard that the guy who did it coded up in 12 days as a lark.

But unfortunately one doesn't seem to have a choice with Redhat..

I certainly hope CentOS picks up the Xen work from Fedora this year. Otherwise I'll have to look to Oracle for serious datacenter work. I'm not happy about that at all, as I've been a very strong fan of Redhat (and have given them lots of business.

But this really underscores how good it is sticking with Open Source. At least I DO have choices.

Re:Xen is a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276905)

> I hate to correct an otherwise good post, but
> that is at best misleading, and at worst just
> plain wrong. Redhat has announced that they are
> only going to support existing Xen installations,
> while providing a way to migrate to KVM.

I work for Red Hat; the information provided is not wrong. Xen within RHEL will be supported until, at least, 2014.

Re:Xen is a big deal (1)

btarval (874919) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277103)

Either RedHat's Marketing department is seriously misleading, or you're seriously mistaken.

. Again, the question isn't whether old existing installations will be supported. It's about RedHat dropping Xen for future installations.

Let me give you this Marketing blurb, since you don't seem to be aware of it: Red Hat Sets Its Virtualization Agenda [redhat.com] "Red Hat's strategic direction for the future development of its virtualization product portfolio is based on KVM,

and

"Existing Xen-based deployments will continue to be supported for the full lifetime of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, and Red Hat will provide a variety of tools and services to enable customers to migrate from their Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Xen deployment to KVM."

Note the words "existing" and RHEL5. No mention about the future except for migrating to KVM.

It's pretty clear that, going forward, if you want to stay with RedHat, you need to move away from Xen.

Sorry, but many people are going to stay with Xen over RedHat. Fortunately there are companies who are willing to accomodate them.

If you have some official news to the contrary, I'd appreciate hearing about. Because right now, people are looking at (and finding) alternatives to Redhat.

Re:Xen is a big deal (1)

ak4good (1505699) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277207)

Xen is not going anywhere because of the size of its install base, if no other reason. RedHat is just hurting itself by dropping it. Go Debian.

Re:Um, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277373)

Only Red Hat internally knows the release agenda.

In the upcoming RHEL5.4 KVM will already available next to Xen.

Re:Um, (3, Insightful)

chelsel (1140907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275943)

Hey, this is open source... if Oracle is doing something permitted by the license agreement then what is the problem... if it's not "in the spirit" of open source then maybe it makes sense to update the license agreement.

Re:Um, (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275989)

The article though tried to make it sound like Oracle's OS was so much more improved then what Red Hat had because they changed the kernel and added a VM but nothing more.

Re:Um, (5, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276057)

This is basically like someone trying to justify that Linux Mint is some grand new distribution when it is nothing more then Ubuntu with a few extra tweaks and drivers added.

Which, in itself, is a lot like someone trying to imply that Ubuntu is a distribution when it's nothing more than a snapshot of Debian sid with a few extra tweaks and drivers added.

Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (4, Interesting)

lacourem (966180) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275869)

Serious question. My employer has recently stated that they would prefer us to use Oracle Linux for future installations instead of Red Hat. Just looking for some insight from someone else who has taken the plunge.

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (3, Informative)

EarlW (530437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276035)

I've installed a few UL Oracle systems. I wanted to be 110% sure that they would run the Oracle database. They just changed 'Red Hat' to 'Oracle'. They run fine...

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (1)

j-cloth (862412) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276797)

I tried to do the same thing but found, at least when OEL was first released, that the Oracle software stack (particularly Oracle Applications) was better supported on Red Hat than on Oracle's distro.

Now, they've caught up and I have some of both types lying around. To be honest, it doesn't really matter to me which is which and I don't think I could actually tell you which distro a particular machine is running without checking /etc/redhat-release.

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (5, Insightful)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276061)

I would not take the plunge. Just grep the kernel source, how many times does the word oracle come up compared to redhat? Redhat and the people they employ have been responsible for a tone of linux development - it is their core business. Oracle have comparatively done bugger all. Redhat employ _real_ kernel developers. Do oracle? So when your server crashes in the middle of the night, who do you think will be able to produce a kernel patch to fix the problem, the people who employ kernel developers and have done so for years. Or.... a company that three years ago decided to rip off somebody elses distro... I would not touch oracle with a barge pole. (disclaimer: but all that is only opinion)

Oracle's kernel developers? (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276569)

Redhat employ _real_ kernel developers. Do oracle?

I would just throw something out there, but, Oracle pretty much is its own operating system in its own right. And, as such, it actually has to do concurrency, availability, all that ACID stuff that frankly "_real_ kernel developers" do not even bother with.

Yes, Oracle is a shitty company the U/I to this database is just terrible and always will be: but everyone knows that. We all have our Horracle stories. But, if you want to put a billion records into a database, and sleep at night, there's only one game in town, and that's Oracle. They've been doing MVCC now for almost 10 years, high availability, ROLAP stuff... been there, they did it.

Point is, if anyone knows anything about reliability, its going to be Oracle, more than it is Red Hat.

Re:Oracle's kernel developers? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276647)

Actually, they are not the only game in town. There is DB2 on IBM mainframe. That really does provide peace of mind as long as you can pay the bills. The user interface is even worse and they are for people that think cobol is still a hip language, but IBM does understand what it means to deliver a fault tolerant system with hot standby spread over different sites. Oh and they are even longer in business than Oracle.

Re:Oracle's kernel developers? (3, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277443)

But, if you want to put a billion records into a database, and sleep at night, there's only one game in town, and that's Oracle

The largest database I maintain for a site I coded has 15 billion records atm and it's doing fine in MySQL, with a relatively busy daily peak time with well over 100 users, all on shared hosting.

In fact the only problem I've had with database growth was when an auto incrementing ID went over ~2 billion in MySQL, which put it over PHP's 2^32-1 integer limit.
And yup this all has to do locking and transactions, not just MyISAM with basic queries.

My personal experience counts for nothing of course but Google, /., etc, etc all using free databases for big work too, so I think your attitude is a bit dated.

Re:Oracle's kernel developers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27278001)

Size is not all. Different queries make different system load. IBM and Oracle is the market leaders of large scale database systems. There are other players that also make large systems.

Large systems can be busy:
"UPSâ(TM) shipping system achieved a peak workload of 1.1 billion SQL statements per hour. UPS uses IBM DB2 Universal Database for z/OS database management software, IBM eServer z990 system and IBM storage."
http://www.wintercorp.com/PressReleases/ttp2005_pressrelease_091405.htm

Large systems can be large:
"The largest OLTP system is Land Registry for England and Wales. The 23.1 TB system employs IBM DB2 Universal Database for z/OS database management software, IBM eServer z990 system, and IBM and Hitachi storage."
http://www.wintercorp.com/PressReleases/ttp2005_pressrelease_091405.htm

Large systems can be expensive:
A example of a large scale IBM database server:
http://tpc.org/results/individual_results/IBM/IBM_595_20080610_ES.pdf
http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=108061001

Re:Oracle's kernel developers? (1)

adrianmsmith (1237152) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277705)

"They've been doing MVCC now for almost 10 years"

Oracle introduced MVCC in Oracle 4, released 1984 (25 years ago)

The grep (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277881)

] grep -ri red linux-2.6.28 | grep -i hat | wc -l
3877
] grep -ri oracle linux-2.6.28 | wc -l
191

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276235)

Serious question. My employer has recently stated that they would prefer us to use Oracle Linux for future installations instead of Red Hat. Just looking for some insight from someone else who has taken the plunge.

What about any other third-party applications?

If you're using SAP, JBoss, etc., and they're only certified to RHEL (and not Oracle Linux), then there's no sense having two different distributions. Try to keep things as cookie-cutter as possible to minimize variables you have to worry about.

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (2)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276599)

Those guys can be really picky too. You can tell them your Oracle Linux or CentOS stuff is identical to RHEL, but if it doesn't actually say RHEL on it, they won't support their stuff at all.

My advice is to use Oracle Linux and take advantage of their end to end support contracts for the servers that are running Oracle products (and keep in mind Oracle owns a lot of products businesses use now like Peoplesoft, JD Edwards, Siebel, etc), and run RHEL on servers that are running non-Oracle stuff.

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277539)

This is one of the reasons I'd prefer Oracle to have a good, cooperative relationship with Red Hat, rather than a parasitic relationship.

They could be working together to keep the APIs the same.

I will admit, however, that where I might use an Oracle server, I'm most likely to be accessing that server through Oracle. On the other hand, there is peace of mind in the sense of being able to fix it yourself if you know that SAP, JBoss, etc. can get around Oracle if necessary.
 

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (2)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276633)

My company has been moving from Solaris to Oracle Linux recently. It's been largely unnoticed by the users and DBAs. The decision to go with Oracle Linux was a cost savings measure, but we also like the idea of Oracle supporting OS-related problems. Red Hat may provide better support than Oracle, but we've spent a lot of time eliminating potential OS issues working with Oracle support.

So far, we haven't run into anything that required Oracle's help with the OS. IMO, Oracle Linux is a good option if it supports the features you need, offers a lower TOC than the alternatives, and your admins are already familiar with RHEL. Running Oracle on RHEL would have cost an extra $300-400 per server under my company's licensing agreements. Depending on the number of servers you have, the cost difference between the two may be negligible.

Re:Is anyone actually using Oracle Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277371)

My company has been moving from Solaris to Oracle Linux recently.

Sad :(

grep wtfismystorage /proc/scsi/scsi; nohup stabselfinface &

Re:Sad :( (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277545)

My company has been moving from Solaris to Oracle Linux recently.

Sad :(

grep wtfismystorage /proc/scsi/scsi; nohup stabselfinface &

<nods-head/>

I am. No problems (so far). (2)

emil (695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27277069)

I had Red Hat on a 1u dual xeon manufactured by IBM. Minimal load, but the box would crash every 6-9 months. I never bothered to figure out why; just rebooted.

While I was migrating to a dual socket, quad core (also by IBM), my subscription died. I learned that someone at corporate HQ had terminated my RHN up2date license (among many others). I admit that I did try to get Red Hat support turned back on, but I couldn't even get their sales staff to send me a quote by my deadline.

Oracle, however, was quite timely and I was able to throw a few RPMS on my new RedHat install and get it patched. The licensing is nebulous, but the system has remained reliable. I have higher tolerance for a bit of downtime, however; ymmv.

Re:I am. No problems (so far). (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277343)

You're not alone in your experience with Red Hat sales.

Red Hat Sales crew (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277561)

Wondering if Red Hat's sales department needs more people who understand how to sell "free" software.

I mean, maybe there are two problems here:

One, maybe they are too short-handed to meet demand.

And, two, maybe they are short-handed because many people who understand the benefits of free software would rather be using it than selling it.

Some reasons for the Oracle case (4, Interesting)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275921)

I support a software product in a telco, and had talks with its IT managers about the Oracle Linux issue. They have lots of Red Hats but see the Oracle offering interesting (and are implementing it) because:

1) Linux (RedHat or others) are really stable systems (compared with other Unixes they had or have), so the support provider switch is not seen as a dramatic issue
2) They can save some cents without (apparently) giving anything. The RedHat support is little money for that kind of company, but a saving always looks good for the directors
3) They avoid one provider's negotiation as a whole (which is a big win: less paper, less meetings, less vendor talk, less decision process, etc.)
4) They mostly ignore the distributed filesystem issues, and for virtualization just apply the leader (VmWare), so the Xen/KVM/Xen-Oracle discussion is not too relevant
5) BTW, for some diverse reasons, their software providers seem to dislike CentOS (maybe the RedHat's negative marketing made its effect, who knows)

Re:Some reasons for the Oracle case (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276343)

1) Linux (RedHat or others) are really stable systems (compared with other Unixes they had or have)

Really? What might these other "Unixes" be?

Linux has gotten fairly stable in the last couple years, but I don't really think all that many people would hold it up as the gold standard.

I have Solaris boxes that have been up since before the 2.6 Linux kernel was released.

Re:Some reasons for the Oracle case (1)

McPierce (259936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276373)

Not sure what you mean with #5, but there's no negative marketing WRT CentOS by Red Hat. CentOS is friends with Red Hat and are symbiotic with them: they provide to the market segment that can't or won't pay for support, and when people ask CentOS for support they're directed to Red Hat.

NOTE: I work for Red Hat and we discuss CentOS from time to time internally. It's a generally well accepted relationship we share with the folks at CentOS.

Re:Some reasons for the Oracle case (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276377)

CentOS is really, really slow on security updates and updates in general.

Cent OS slow? (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277565)

Hmm. Maybe they should be charging more so that they can afford the manpower to move the updates and patches down-stream?

Or maybe their users should be donating more?

where to start... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276835)

If you don't need them, avoid them like a money grubbing plague. And pay someone who really provides value to the Linux (our) community.

ooh the controversy (4, Interesting)

mutantSushi (950662) | more than 5 years ago | (#27275981)

I'm not THE most knowledgeable on the minutae of these, but all the bad blood about Red Hat/ Oracle seems silly: The whole point of "Free Software"/Linux is that any company does not "own" code or software (well, they still do, but give up any claim to interfere with others' use of it). Commercial Linux companies obviously need to make their money thru support services. So Oracle thinks they can compete against Red Hat in this area. Obviously, Red Hat as the signifigant maintainer/updater MAY have an advantage. All the end-users get to decide it themselves, and since the code-base is so close, it's relatively easy to switch back and forth. What is the problem when "Free Software" is working exactly how it's supposed to? So what if Oracle eats Red Hat's business for lunch without contributing back? Linux will still be improved by those who want to improve it. All that such a scenario would mean is that (if it occurs) the model of maintenance/support service subsidizing development may not work for all cases. If that's true, then so what?

Re:ooh the controversy (1)

aralin (107264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276075)

Oracle is essentially a parazite on the Redhat Linux. It is not in Oracle self-interest to eat RedHat's lunch because if RedHat goes bust, Oracle won't be able to maintain it by itself. Oracle only wants to eat the minimum amount of RedHat's lunch needed for its own profits, which lie in selling their own products with full support of the entire vertical stack. So clearly Oracle will go for support contracts on servers that run Oracle Database or Middleware solutions, or maybe as part of an existing contract few other servers that are essentially part of the entire solution, but which might run other products. Oracle would be against itself to try to compete with RedHat in other areas and make RedHat's business model financially unviable.

Re:ooh the controversy (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276619)

The controversy is that Oracle is quite literally a leech. And is trying to take money away from a company that is heavily invested in the Linux community.

Of course RedHat's failure wouldn't kill the community, but it sure wouldn't help it. And every penny RedHat looses is one less penny to hire a FOSS developer.

To make things a little more clear, (2, Interesting)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277573)

Oracle is the source of the controversy. They are the ones strutting around saying, look what we're getting for free!

I suppose it is because many of their big customers expect them to play the predator. It's not the money saved. That's peanuts.

It's the image. Oracle provides a buffer between the dog-eat-dog corporate world and the touchy-feely alternate corporate world.

Quality Support? (2, Funny)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276009)

Oracle can't even give quality support for its own software. Why on Earth would it think it can give quality support for someone else's software?

Re:Quality Support? (0)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276407)

Tried Oracle Linux a few years ago. Now, I am a customer of Oracle, what might I perhaps want to use it for? Perhaps to run an Oracle database?

Apparently not to Oracle. Getting the installer to work involved wading through various technotes, installing obscure RPMs, dependency hell, etc. Installing it on Ubuntu was actually a lot easier, and it isn't even supported.

And don't get me started about support. Oracle Metalink [oracle.com] now requires flash to work at all. I mean, it is sort of like using GIMP to edit text files.

Re:Quality Support? (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276755)

Oracle Metalink [oracle.com] now requires flash to work at all. I mean, it is sort of like using GIMP to edit text files.

Not sure about your other claims, but this one is just a flat out lie. Right on the front page of Metalink is a selector where you can choose to login to the "classic" HTML-only site instead of using the whizbang Flash version.

Total Flamebait (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276033)

This is great. When the only thing differentiating Redhat from Oracle is service, Redhat will win because they are the ones actually creating the product. If there is any single company that I'd like to see pushed into the ground by open source, it is Oracle. Whereas Microsoft is kind of a bumbling giant that can't quite get things right but gets by on chair throwing, Oracle is downright evil. They will actively destroy another company if it makes them a cent.

On the other hand, Oracle is much less likely to go under because they produce other things of value that the open source community will have difficulty replacing (because we don't do much business software).
--
World peace will happen. http://p5y.org/ [p5y.org] [p5y.org] It's simple.

Plus 1, TRoll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276117)

Of all legitimate out o7 business development models these challeNges Preferrably with an

Oracle understands business (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276167)

Before everyone goes all stupid crazy about Oracle versus Red Hat Steel Cage Match, I'd just like to point out that Oracle has been around since 1977. Redhat: 1995. Redhat brought in $400 million in revenue in 2007. Oracle? $22.43 billion. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Oracle is a freight train, and Redhat is a skinny guy who jogs a couple times a week in the business world.

If I go to senior management and say I'd like to use Redhat Linux, they'll go "What's that?" If I say I want to run Oracle Linux, they'll ask "How much will that save us?" There is no question of Oracle's reliability, or market performance. None. Oracle doesn't need to prove itself. So if you're a fan of getting Linux into the business, you should be saying "hip-hip hoooray" to this; You've got a free pass now at the executive board meetings to install Linux now somewhere. Or... or you can bitch about how it's the wrong flavor of linux and tear into Oracle for ruining the good name of Linux, how Orthodox Linux users are into shaming other users, and Oracle is more like New Evangelical Linux -- half the guilt, twice the usability, etc., etc.

Your call.

most U.S. business understands Red Hat == Linux (2, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276263)

I've not seen Oracle Linux in any client of my company's data centers, and they include some with huge budgets (I.T. budgets over a billion). For running Oracle most are Red Hat, some are OpenSuSE, and a little bit of some others. No Oracle Linux anywhere.

Re:Oracle understands business (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276629)

Yes, obviously because your senior management has heard of it, it must be what's good for the community, no actual evaluation and long term planning is necessary.

Re:Oracle understands business (1)

See Attached (1269764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276657)

Oracle does need to prove itself. Its got its own tech stacks that seem to be completely independant of each other. How many copies of the JVM are in an app server? Why are versions 8.0.6 still embedded inside the higher versions? Redhat provides coherency, and transparent success. How often does one read "Redhat 5.0 or newer"? Oracle provides the specific checklist of which versions are supposed to work with other versions. Redhat does a much better job at a stable and well-thought out product. Should we expect Oracle to fork Redhat or just pimp it as their own each time a new version comes out? I can't honestly pay Oracle for support when Redhat provides the coherency that leads to success. We have enough would-be visionaries that merely resell products that are "hammered to shape, filed to blend, painted to conceal" where others build it to their own spec and vision. Its time for the vendors that add value to be paid for their work, and ensure that they stay in business. I shudder to think what would happen if we relied on Oracle to provide coherency in the developing world of open source software products.

Re:Oracle understands business (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277229)

Its time for the vendors that add value to be paid for their work, and ensure that they stay in business.

I agree. I think it would be better to CentOS and not have to go hat in hand to the executive board meetings than cause money to flow to Ellison just for slapping an Oracle logo on a product Redhat has developed. Of course, getting money to flow to Redhat would be a better outcome than either.

Uhm, no. Don't evangelize Oracle Linux. (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277593)

Oracle's Linux is tuned for Oracle's primary product. More than half of your servers do not run Oracle's database. Saying, "Let's run Oracle Linux!" for anything but Oracle's database servers could be bordering on incompetence.

And if your management is still saying "What's that?" when someone suggests implementing servers on Red Hat's OS, maybe you need to communicate more positively with management about the state of the OS marketplace.

Just saying.

One stop shopping (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276265)

If you run an Oracle shop with DB support, Oracle's Linux support is a deal that's hard to beat. It's comparatively cheap and coverage is 24/7 across all time zones until a problem is fixed no matter if it's database or OS related. Try that with other Linux support vendors. If it ends up being a DB issue, they'll point you to Oracle and tell you to have a nice day. Then you can start the trouble ticket process all over again and hope Oracle doesn't say it's an OS issue. Anyone up for finger pointing when your mission critical system is down?

Re:One stop shopping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27276607)

Well, last time I checked, Oracle didn't sell the underlying hardware or the network. There's two big items to point fingers at if they want to brush off your call.

If you're dead-set on top to bottom support, go DB2 on AIX on POWER hardware. Surprisingly (or not), you'll still be disappointed.

Re:One stop shopping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277795)

or.. just hire a group of admins who understand what they are doing and use CentOS. Good admins arent cheap, but it's better than relying on someone else to fix your problems for you.

They don't know what they are selling (5, Insightful)

bol (152634) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276367)

The greatest challenge that Red Hat (and Oracle) now face is to determine what they're actually selling and make a clear case for the added value that they provide.

I've run a few large Linux shops, recently including one requiring over 300 RHEL licenses and I can tell you that without a doubt that both Red Hat and Oracle sales people have zero idea what they are selling, what the differences may be and what added value they provide.

Red Hat copyrighted materials are the Red Hat trademark, logo, etc and the key difference between all of the RHEL derivates is simply the absence of that name and logo. Each distribution can pick and chose what patches and changes they want to merge in but everything is open source. It's how CentOS, Oracle, etc can make a competing "product." It's a bundle of freely available code and not much more. Where products differentiate is their delivery mechanisms and support of said code.

Things get complicated when you start asking Oracle and Red Hat what you're actually buying and what that support entails you to. I can tell you from first hand experience that I have never had a single issue get resolved via Red Hat's support organization - including clear bugs with tickets that still exist (primarily memory management code with kswapd.) Maybe they're only setup to help people get printers working with cups? And the same goes with Oracle Support.

By Oracle's move of choosing what code to merge and adopt they are misleading customers by openly calling it and comparing it to RHEL - which is exactly how it's sold and pitched to customers.

Oracle even offers a utility to run on your RHEL installation to re-brand it to Oracle Enterprise Linux. It replaces a bunch of packages and removes the Red Hat name, points it at the Oracle yum sources and calls it a day.

If Oracle wants to create a world class Linux they need to provide the tools, support and honesty to make it a successful competitor rather than relying on their name (which does not hold much clout, despite what their marketing guru's may think.) Combine that with resolution of real problems and not just entry-level technical support and you'll have a winner.

Come to think of it, that applies to Red hat as well.

Re:They don't know what they are selling (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276587)

I think you're misreading what Oracle is trying to do. Oracle is not particularly interested in creating the best Linux distribution out there. Oracle is interested in creating the best *end to end Enterprise solution* out there. Most of their acquisitions over the past several years have been toward that goal. Oracle wants to be the single source for every part of the software stack in Enterprise computing.

Right now, Oracle can offer a total end to end solution with one support contract for OS, DB, Middleware, and front end apps. No one else right now can do that, and that's a huge deal for the executives of the large companies that tend to run Oracle software. Oracle is not trying to compete with RedHat, Oracle is trying to compete with ERP providers like SAP. RedHat is just providing them with free OS development.

Re:They don't know what they are selling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277439)

Right now, Oracle can offer a total end to end solution with one support contract for OS, DB, Middleware, and front end apps. No one else right now can do that

IBM?

Right. IBM. (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277625)

Oracle is probably trying to position itself against IBM.

But they really should be passing some of their revenue stream back upstream, instead of pretending to be predatory towards Red Hat.

Maybe they plan to eventually make a play for Red Hat. That would be a shame, because, unless Oracle changes a lot internally, they would not know what to do with Red Hat.

Even IBM knows better than to try that.

Re:Right. IBM. (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277791)

Oh theyve tried, believe us, to take over redhat many times.

Theyve been shown to the door on all those ocassions. And they will still be shown out this time, now by customers.

GOOD.

I mean, their offer on this is so idiotic that its scary: where the hell will they get the manpower to actually give YOU OS support? How does saving 2500 bucks/year (what rhels most expensive intel suscription costs), versus a HUGE support plan for the oracle DB (that is more into de tens of thousends per-year/CPU), while reducing the posibility to get the best possible platform support, makes sense to the customer?

Youd have to be a suckpuppet for the brand to actually buy into this.

(well, to not attribute to evilness what can be explained by stupidity: you may just as well be plain stupid)

Re:They don't know what they are selling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277861)

No one else right now can do that,...

Except of course IBM - who who can supply and support everything under the sun:

  • Hardware (System p, z10...)
  • OS (AIX, z/OS)
  • DB (DB2)
  • Middleware (Websphere MQ/MsgBkr/ESB)
  • Web-tier (Websphere Application Server)
  • Custom application (via IBM Consultancy services)

even Microsoft has as much of the stack as Oracle with Windows, SQL Server, BizTalk and IIS.

Oracle != Linux (1)

John Utah (1318581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276701)

Luckily, the only people I hear recommending Oracle's Linux is DBAs. All sys admins I know (including myself) wouldn't even consider it. RedHat all the way.

Re:Oracle != Linux (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277179)

All sys admins I know (including myself) wouldn't even consider it. RedHat all the way.

All the sysadmins I know (including myself) wouldn't ever consider it. Debian all the way.

Management on the other hand...

Problem with Oracle EL (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27276881)

Last I checked, it didn't come with a Yum setup, and you had to pay for support to get simple things like software updates and the ability to install software from their FTP servers, or from anything other their install media.

$99 per year per system for an update-only contract, and without it, you can't upgrade to apply things like security patches (until they eventually release a new version of the whole system with new media, for you to update using install media). That's not free!

With CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc, you actually get your security fixes automatically with yum update. With Ubuntu and Debian you get 'apt-get'.

Until/unless Oracle does something about this deficiency, there's really no reason to pick Oracle over the alternatives, except in the event you have to pay for support anyways.

Oracle wants everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27277467)

They make their own version of Linux and their own virtual machine based on Xen. They won't support Oracle on any other virtual machine other than their own either...assholes.

Why would I bother with Oracle's version of Linux for the database and then a different one for web servers, app servers, etc.? Just use Redhat or even better Fedora or Centos for free. Why pay for Redhat at all? I guess there is a sucker born every minute but in 20 years of IT I have never called a vendor for OS support, maybe I've just been lucky.

Support for software is only worth the upgrades anyway. Everytime you call any software vendor they will just ask if you have the latest version installed. If you do, then the fix is always in the next version. If not, they will tell you to upgrade to the latest version. That is software support.

A couple of reasons we will not migrate *ever* (3, Insightful)

wzzrd (545802) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277607)

1. If you have a mixed server park (that is: host different applications too, other than Oracle's), migrating is *not* feasible. I'm not going to support yet another OS, just because it is *possibly* a tiny bit more convenient once it is set up. Because before it's set up, I'll need to have deployment mechanisms for another OS, management tools for another OS etc. Not worth it.
2. To extend my first point: Oracle's support might be a bit cheaper for the OS, my time is a lot more expensive than a thousand bucks worth of support on a years basis. That matters when having to support more OS'es.
3. Red Hat fixes the bugs, and then releases the src.rpm. Oracle has to Q&A that, port it, upload and release it. Updates for Oracle Linux will be (a lot) later than Red Hat's. See how much time it is costing CentOS to release 5u3. No offence, but for production systems, I want to have potential fixes *now* if the situation we're in is hurting us.
4. I'm just about to get RHCA certified. Can I get that level of Linux certification from Oracle? Don't start saying the OS'es are compatible, because they are not, see point 5 and 6.
5. The only thing Oracle can do on the long term, if fork RHEL. The amount of support, the changes they make and the fact they want to support until the end of time in the own way, might not be called a fork, but it will be just that in the end. So much for compatibility.
6. They ported yast. Need I say more?
7. Not really a business reason but check this out. Oracle announced Oracle Linux just a couple of months after RH scooped JBoss from underneath Larry's nose. One of the previous posts is right: Oracle is not trying to compete with RH. It's trying to get revenge. ;-)

I sense a disturbance of the force (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#27277775)

IBM brings Sun back from the dead, Oracle tries (yet again), to surface as some company that can actually support an OS. Novell is still being breastfed by the big names in the industry, despite it delivering an unsufferable piece of shit of an OS, consistently, for years now.

RH, on the other hand, got its hand on QMranet (whatever), and has the SolidICE thingie that, from my POV, will bolster it forward as a virtualization leader that will break the potential lockin embedded in closed-source VM image disks, formats and proprietary programs and the like.

The powers-that-be are scared, and want to slow Red Hat down.... i dont think its gonna work: the numbers on RHEL this year will be sky-high, both on profits and on addoption: its redhat who will capitalize better in this times of crisis, and oracle, ibm, microsoft and the like, who stand to loose the most in the corporate space.

Thanks MS and associated Repugs, you first gave us Vista, then you gave us this huge crisis that will force the market to actually look at the value you deliver... scary thought, yes?

Well, you SHOULD BE SCARED.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...