Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

177 comments

But... (5, Funny)

Docboy-J23 (1095983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650178)

This Barbie has a new hat!

OSR (Obligitory Simpson's Reference) (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650312)

It's Malabu Stacy with a new hat!

Re:OSR (Obligitory Simpson's Reference) (1)

capo_dei_capi (1794030) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651708)

Malabu Stacy? Is that a Nigerian Malibu Stacy clone?

Re:But... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650322)

This Barbie has a new hat!

That nigger has a new rap!

Re:But... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650334)

Really?

I knew something looked different about Barb, but my first guess was she had her natural breasts replaced with manmade ones. A new hat would be cheaper.

Re:But... (1)

MadGeek007 (1332293) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652620)

I thought the technology was old hat.

1, 2, 3, Profit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650184)

1. 2.6.32 Kernel
2. re-branded Red Hat
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:1, 2, 3, Profit! (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650522)

3. ???

3. Support.

Oracle support sucks (2, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651850)

Anecdotal evidence, but where I work there were some people using pro*fortran to access Oracle databases from Fortran. pro*fortran was dropped between Oracle 8 and 8.1

It took six months of digging for the Oracle support people to finally tell us they had dropped pro*fortran from their product. Everyone kept saying "sure, we support Fortran, but that's not my specialty, let me get an expert for you"

When the technical support people don't know their own product, what worth is it paying for that it?

Consistent (1)

TravisHein (981987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650194)

Don't a lot of Oracle products just have Oracle stickers on top of some other product line they acquired anyway.

Re:Consistent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650316)

They did not acquire redHat yet.

Re:Consistent (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650732)

Not their flagship database offering. But, you're right, since they acquired Sun, we now have Oracle OpenOffice.org, Oracle VirtualBox, Oracle MySQL, etc., much like before when they acquired SleepyCat so we have Oracle Berkeley DB.

Maybe Oracle should acquire Embarcadero, so we could have Oracle Delphi! *drum fill*

Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week!

Re:Consistent (2, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650884)

Maybe Oracle should acquire Embarcadero, so we could have Oracle Delphi! *drum fill*

Funny since Borland named came up with the name Delphi as a reference to its ability to connect to the Oracle database.

Re:Consistent (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651306)

*golf clap*

But... (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650278)

But...but...but...Theirs is unbreakable!

Re:But... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650370)

What the hell does Bruce Willis have to do with Oracle?

Re:But... (3, Funny)

WeatherGod (1726770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650930)

Well, if you put water on it, I am sure it would short out and drown...

Re:But... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650628)

Do you really get a pinquin with an armour for free with that 1400 dollar [oracle.com] a year support?

Nope. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33651148)

We bought the support from them. No penguin.

Re:Nope. (3, Funny)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651328)

We bought the support from them. No penguin.

I see why you had to post that anonymously.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33651570)

Well, if the judge awards us the penguin, I'll be back to brag with my real name.

Re:But... (2, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650692)

And it's the real truth!

Not a false truth, or an imaginary truth. This truth is much truthier.

I'd even dare to say it's the truthiest!

Re:But... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33651500)

But...but...but...Theirs is unbreakable!

So it uses the NT kernel rather that the open sores Linsux kernel?

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652566)

So it uses the NT kernel rather that the open sores Linsux kernel?

He said unbreakable, not unbearable.

Rebranding something is surprising? (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650296)

I thought this was perfectly normal in many industries. Remember the SNES CD addon that became the PS1? And how 3G and 4G mean whatever the company wants at the time?

Re:Rebranding something is surprising? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650484)

>>>the SNES CD addon that became the PS1?

The PS1 was more than just a CD addon. After Nintendo screwed Sony, the company decided to avoid that massive loss by adding a 32-bit CPU and GPU. Thus it became more than just a CD player.

Re:Rebranding something is surprising? (2, Insightful)

JonJ (907502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650616)

After Nintendo screwed Sony

Yeah, imagine that. Nintendo didn't want to give Sony complete control over something that Nintendo had essentially created. Those bastards.

Re:Rebranding something is surprising? (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651856)

>>>Nintendo didn't want to give Sony complete control over something that Nintendo had essentially created.

False. Sony and Nintendo had created a partnership for the CD addon and of course would share both expenses and profits. The arrangement was similar to the Sony/Phillips arrangement (they both bore the cost of developing the Audio CD). Then Nintendo decided they didn't want a CD addon after all because it would be too easy to pirate the games, so they jumped ship, leaving Sony with all the incurred debt.

So YES Nintendo screwed Sony, just the same as if we agreed to buy a car together but then I suddenly backed-out, leaving you with the $20,000 bill.

Re:Rebranding something is surprising? (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650674)

And the 2.6.32 kernel plus Red Hat is more than just a distro, its also lies!

Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (4, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650328)

Oracle is simply offering a newer kernel than Red Hat and fine-tuning it for Oracle's own software.

This could be glossing over quite a bit of useful work for Oracles customers. "Fine tuning" could be anything from tweaking some compiler settings to actually patching things in the kernel. Its hardly a trivial task given the size and complexity that most Oracle customers bring.

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650470)

oh please, oracle customer complexities are a result from the oracle usage and not the motivation for it.

oracle is one of those business providing useless solution so they can charge you twice for the consultancy.

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (4, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650788)

Ooooo, a placebo solution!?!

The Spurious Placebo Solutions Company. For the CIO who needs to do something but not sure what!

We guarantee that by purchasing from us, a CIO will have continued employment with plenty of bonuses and appear to be innovative!

Proprietary and F/OSS vsersions available.

Ask about our buzzword du jour package! Free with this code: IMA PHB RETARD

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651632)

I've always wanted a placebo. I have no idea how to use one, but it sounds so KINKY! The adult toy store never seems to have any in stock - unless, of course, they keep them hidden behind the counter! I'll ask, next time I stop by.

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652640)

The first rule of The Placebo Club is that no one talks about.... ahh, shit, I'm out of the Club now.

engineering != rhetorical bile (3, Insightful)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651020)

oh please, oracle customer complexities are a result from the oracle usage and not the motivation for it.

Oh wow, what a revelation. Using a complex software causes usage complexity. Here, have a banana as a price.

Yeah, usage of Oracle causes usage complexity. Does that mean that fine tuning a Linux distro to ease the pain of configuring a box suitable for Oracle products is something trivial, or non important, or what? What was exactly the point?

It doesn't even have to be for running Oracle database-related problems. When you run a EE container, be it JBoss or WebLogic (now a Oracle product) on a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris box that sits between a HTTP server and a database server, you are still bound to tune it for efficient performance according to the specifics of the system. I cannot think of anyone simply dropping a box with software on it on production without the necessary configuration.

That configuration is repetitive, tedious and specific for any non-trivial product for non-trivial usage. It is hardly an Oracle side effect. Typically sysadmins have to automate those configuration changes (or keep a golden ghost pre-configured image.) No matter what, that is still a burden. Better yet to have a vendor backing a set of configuration items already packaged into a turnkey solution.

oracle is one of those business providing useless solution so they can charge you twice for the consultancy.

Just because you don't like it and like to apply partisan ideologies to engineering, that does not mean that what they do is useless. It might be useless to you, might be useless in some (actually many) business contexts. But that does not mean anything on the general case where having an Oracle solution (not just an oracle database) is a useless solution.

Engineering != rhetorical bile.

Re:engineering != rhetorical bile (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651210)

There are sometimes unavoidable complexities, however I know first-hand companies providing 'product' and 'services' rapidly prioritize services. At first, the services may be a 'necessary evil' to enable the complex software, but the revenue quickly becomes intoxicating and soon any effort toward ease-of-use and out-of-the-box usability becomes a threat to services revenue.

Re:engineering != rhetorical bile (1, Insightful)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651612)

There are sometimes unavoidable complexities, however I know first-hand companies providing 'product' and 'services' rapidly prioritize services. At first, the services may be a 'necessary evil' to enable the complex software, but the revenue quickly becomes intoxicating and soon any effort toward ease-of-use and out-of-the-box usability becomes a threat to services revenue.

This is absolutely true, but at least my experience with Oracle (for supporting Oracle databases), former BEA for their EE containers, and Sun and HP (for supporting their hardware) has not been like that. Rarely in the companies I've worked with I've seen the constant remora-like latching of consultancy as described here. In 10 years working in Solaris/HP-UX/Linux environments, I can count with less than half of my fingers a need of bringing expensive vendor consultancy. In fact, I can only remember three incidents within the last 8 years were we had to bring Sun engineers to help with catastrophic hardware failures... out of several dozens of hardware boxes running almost non-stop, 24x7 on production environments serving global traffic. And only two tech support tickets with BEA (and that was for container versions past their end-of-life.) Not bad to be honest.

Having capable sysadmins, network admins and database admins (which is a must in any large organization) ensure transparent operations without much incidences. This is not stuff that I'm pulling out of my ass. I have actual data from actual work places supporting applications that weren't sometimes that well-written, supporting actual operations.

The greatest costs have always been in software development and application-specific deployments. Not on expensive, vendor-specific consultancy fees. Maybe my work experiences as a developer and sysadmin make me an outlier, but when I talk to many of my colleagues on both sides of the UNIX/MS fence, that's their experience, too.

I would suggest people take what I say here with a grain of salt, for they might have actual sour experiences when it comes to vendor consulting draining their pockets. However, that has never been the case in any place I've worked in the last 10 years in large enterprises (nor in 15 years of software development.)

the koolaid is strong among /.ers (1, Flamebait)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651672)

And the fact that people actually grade the post I'm replying to as insightful shows the actual degree of industrial exposure sported by many of these /. fanboys. I mean really, can't these fools think in engineering terms without choking into whatever flavor of pseudo-liberating koolaid currently en vogue?

Re:the koolaid is strong among /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33651864)

anything oracle provides beyond postgres feature set is so hard to setup that you need an oracle consultant or a sysadm trained on some level of oracle dba certifications; either way you're paying a tax on oracle for using a feature you already paid for.

tell me, ever used oracle clustering where the master is also in HA?

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650506)

This could be glossing over quite a bit of useful work for Oracles customers.

Dude, get with the program. Oracle is up there with Microsoft in the Slashdot-Hate department. If a "story" can be slanted against them, we go all the way...

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650842)

the RHEL 2.6.18 kernel is from May of 2006. Its now September 2010.

If it takes Oracle recompiling the thing and saying its better than the RHEL kernel, more power to them. For raw disk speed, newer kernels are 100% faster than RHEL kernels. There are _lots_ of other tweaks including newer hardware support that has happened in the past 4.5 years.

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651418)

Does it also have an updated glibc? I've had problems with people trying to run Centos because RHEL comes with a glibc from 2006 as well, which lacks some of the functions that I use.

Oracle passes off Red Hat's work as their own. (2, Informative)

Kludge (13653) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651394)

This could be glossing over quite a bit of useful work for Oracles customers.

You are glossing over the point of the article.
1. Redhat writes lots of great Linux stuff that make the kernel better (11.6% of the kernel).
2. Oracle passes it off as their own. (They only contribute 1.3%, less that 1/10 that of Red Hat).

Re:Uhh, isn't this what Oracle customers pay for? (2, Informative)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652394)

"Fine tuning" could be anything from tweaking some compiler settings to actually patching things in the kernel.

They patched quite a few things, but at the same time thought it important to be as close to mainline as possible. Here's the lowdown from Chris Mason [lwn.net] over at LWN:

Hi everyone,

One of the goals of this kernel was to stay as close to 2.6.32.stable as we could. The sources are here in git, they won't be rebased:

http://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=linux-2.6-unbreakable.git;a= [oracle.com] ...
git://oss.oracle.com/git/linux-2.6-unbreakable.git
The main differences from mainline:

*) semtimedop optimizations. I posted these to the list a while ago, and Manfred took things in a less complex direction. He was waiting for me to fully benchmark the less complex version, but we ran out of time in the release cycle and had to focus on other things. Oracle hammers on the IPC lock, so these made a big difference, and now I finally have time to properly benchmark his approach against mine.

*) Ocfs2
*) Small lock contention fixes
*) Receive packet steering
*) A large update to RDS (this is in a different package)
*) A patch to list msi irqs for each device in sysfs. A modified irqbalance uses this to keep irqs on numa local cpus.

There are other bits and pieces, but we resisted the urge to pile things in.

The solid state disk access number came on a huge machine, and the improvements came from getting rid a lock in the driver and enabling it for softirq affinity code without taking any of the request locks.

Over the next 12 months we'll be getting an update prepared to a new mainline version, and trying to hammer on upstream kernels as much as we can to reduce our patch count even more.

-chris

Ohhh the truth!!! (4, Interesting)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650374)

If the idea was to cause panic or start a conspiracy theory, it failed miserably. Nothing to see. Oracle is simply making a new kernel available which is newer and has more enhancements. Instead of waiting for RH, they are taking control of that piece of the distribution (if customers want it). Oracle should do the same with the rest of the OS and try to innovate there, instead of simply distributing pristine RHEL with their logos. But then, they already have Solaris which is much more suited for the markets they are aiming at (high-end enterprise servers), so why waste the time ?

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650446)

But then, they already have Solaris which is much more suited for the markets they are aiming at (high-end enterprise servers), so why waste the time ?

Drivers.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (3, Interesting)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650584)

The high-end server market doesn't need as many drivers as desktops. Oracle has all the agreements with Intel, LSI and whoever helps them build servers to have drivers developed. For the high-end, they aren't going to expect the community to do that for them. Oracle is wasting time on Linux because Sun failed to bring Solaris to the masses. Now Linux is the mainstream datacenter OS and Oracle can't ignore that. But I'm sure we'll see they pushing Solaris a lot more now.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650708)

Oracle has all the agreements with Intel, LSI and whoever helps them build servers to have drivers developed

I have a server with a year-old Intel gigabit chipset where only one LAN port works under Solaris, both work under Linux. Last month the Solaris bug was sitting at "3 - Yes, that's a problem". I think the bug was reported about 10 months ago.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (2, Interesting)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650940)

You know the official Oracle answer for that: get a support contract on a supported hardware and they'll fix it for you.

Sadly as it is, that's how they are running the business now. They want mid-range and high-end servers and support contracts for everything.

They dumped OpenSolaris and have repeatedly said they have no interest in the entry-level server market. I also have many bugs opened (for whitebox hardware) that have had to attention from Oracle after the acquisition.

Personally I think they are missing a lot of opportunities to spread Solaris, but they seem happy with those 50k paying Solaris customers. Let's see how long that lasts. As a sysadmin working on Solaris daily, I hope it does... but I'm also being realistic as to where Oracle wants to focus when it comes to servers and Solaris.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651838)

They want mid-range and high-end servers and support contracts for everything.

Well that's very nice, but aren't they interested in the business of those of us who don't? Large companies are strange beasts. They always seem to forget how they got to be large companies.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650780)

"But I'm sure we'll see they pushing Solaris a lot more now."

I am not sure what fantasy world you live in but every large enterprise I have experience with are getting rid of Solaris as fast as they possibly can.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651102)

Sorry, I don't live in a fantasy world. If you think banks, telcos and financial institutions are dumping Solaris as fast as they can, tell me what fantasy world you live in.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652324)

Same here, in both smaller enterprises and my current rather large storage vendor; we are adding SPARC H/W just as fast as the x86 architectures, along with some Cisco UCS. There are tons of Solaris installations out there in the big data centers, kids. Not that Oracle is my friend, they are just another method for me to get paid at the moment, until they botch Solaris and I bail on it. I'm already moving into big VMware and more admin tool designing. Solaris can't last under the insane care of Larry. Profits first, innovation comes when someone buys a lot of their products, then starts complaining about the bugs. THEN they start the fixin'. Oracle is a dinosaur. Nothing less.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650990)

> But then, they already have Solaris which is much more suited for the markets they are aiming at (high-end enterprise servers), so why waste the time ?

No. It makes far more sense to ask them why they bothered with Sun in the first place.

Oracle's reference platform has been Linux for a long time now.

The idea that you need Solaris to run an Oracle database is an argument that is very much out of date.

In truth, they probably care more about Java than Solaris.

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (0, Flamebait)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651084)

If the idea was to cause panic or start a conspiracy theory, it failed miserably. Nothing to see. Oracle is simply making a new kernel available which is newer and has more enhancements. Instead of waiting for RH, they are taking control of that piece of the distribution (if customers want it). Oracle should do the same with the rest of the OS and try to innovate there, instead of simply distributing pristine RHEL with their logos. But then, they already have Solaris which is much more suited for the markets they are aiming at (high-end enterprise servers), so why waste the time ?

Market and product development. For people and businesses that run Oracle products, this is actually a good thing. For people who don't use/want/need Oracle products, it is not necessarily relevant. For /. fanboys, this is is good stuff for building strawmen (the later not directed at you, but the hacker-wannabes that seem to pollute the /. forums with their ramblings.)

Re:Ohhh the truth!!! (1)

dr.newton (648217) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651126)

Oracle should do the same with the rest of the OS and try to innovate there...

Agreed, and they probably will.

If Oracle wants to continue to sell Xen-based virtualization products, they're looking at much deeper changes to their distro than this. A secondary goal of this could be to get Oracle ramped up to diverge further from Red Hat's enterprise offering, since the writing is on the wall for Xen support in RHEL.

So what? (2, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650384)

What did you expect, that Oracle will have coded their own kernel from scratch? Every distro uses a version of the same Linux kernel. TFA is a troll.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650542)

No, but I did expect that Oracle would put the kernel at the bottom of their distro, not on top.

Re:So what? (2, Informative)

sprag (38460) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650776)

Not a troll, but a pointing out the obvious. The "major" announcement was nothing more than 2.6.18+patches -> 2.6.32.

What doesn't get mentioned is that the oracle kernel would invalidate any ISV certifications that oracle's linux might have "inherited" from RHEL...

Re:So what? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651454)

Not a troll, but a pointing out the obvious.

No, it's a troll. Otherwise they'd point out that other obvious fact -- that RHEL's kernel is [**gasp**] "just" a custom configured 2.6.18 Linux kernel. No distro is coding their own kernel from scratch.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650792)

And most people do not know that Linux kernel is operating system, not just a kernel. As Linux is a monolithic kernel and not microkernel.

or in short (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650430)

We see what you did there, oracle...

But how is this not fraud? (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650460)

They made direct comparisons to RedHat kernels claiming performance, security and stability enhancements? If it is the same, then those claims cannot possibly be true. This is confusing... and troubling.

Re:But how is this not fraud? (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650978)

You have it backwards. They took RHEL and replaced the Kernel. The Kernel is the only thing in there that ISN'T from RedHat. The "Fraud" is that TFA is crying emo tears about how "all" Oracle did was replace the custom RedHat Kernel (2.6.18 iirc) with 2.6.32 (plus custom patches). Apparently to call it a "new" kernel TFA feels they should have started entirely from scratch. Otherwise it's not "new" it's only new to the distribution, with new, coded by Oracle, patches added. Just like if you buy a used car, it's fraud to tell your friends you have a new car. It's not new somebody else had it first!

Re:But how is this not fraud? (2, Informative)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652576)

Full Disclosure: I work for Red Hat, but these opinions are my own and not representative of RHT.

The Kernel is the only thing in there that ISN'T from RedHat

This is wildly misleading. Almost everything Red Hat ships in Enterprise Linux is not from Red Hat. Projects like GCC, RPM package manager, Gnome, Glibc, KDE are all too big for Red Hat to develop on its own. The only things I can think of that are completely from Red Hat are layered products like Directory Server or projects where Red Hat has maintainership and majority contributions, like NetworkManager.

Having said that, I can't think of a kernel contribution report in recent years where Red Hat was not #1.

Apparently to call it a "new" kernel TFA feels they should have started entirely from scratch.

To call it a "new" kernel it has to be something less than nine months old [kernel.org] .

Re:But how is this not fraud? (1)

mrjatsun (543322) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651006)

disclaimer: I work for Oracle, but not on Linux.. And I know nothing about this...
But it seems pretty obvious

The latest RHEL, 5.5, ships with a ancient (2.6.18) and heavily patch linux kernel.
That's the kernel RHEL supports commercially. It sounds like Oracle is going to
support 2.6.32 on the equivalent distro.. i.e. no need to wait for, or upgrade to RHEL 6.

So what's confusing and troubling? The fact that Oracle is saying a 2.6.32 kernel is
better than a heavily patch 2.6.18 kernel?

Nothing is stopping RHEL from doing the same... But I'm sure they would
rather have their customers upgrade to RHEL 6..

Re:But how is this not fraud? (2, Insightful)

sprag (38460) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651138)

RHEL 6 upgrades are free for those paying support, so that's not it.

By replacing the kernel it is no longer (even close to) RHEL 5 so ISV certifications are shot. Making oracle's linux unsupported by any 3rd party software other than what oracle itself has certified.

Re:But how is this not fraud? (1)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652608)

It's possible they went with 2.6.32 because they hope it will be ABI compatible with the RHEL 6 kernel.

Re:But how is this not fraud? (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652414)

"They made direct comparisons to RedHat kernels claiming performance, security and stability enhancements? If it is the same, then those claims cannot possibly be true. This is confusing... and troubling."

i am neither confused nor troubled by their claims.

Good for databases (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650614)

Just one example of why this is good - iotop.

I've been watching the RHEL bug for adding iotop since at least RHEL 5.3. It keeps getting bumped, now RHEL 5.7 IIRC.

It would require a bunch of backporting work from the kernel beyond 2.6.18. But once sysadmins get used to knowing which disks are busy they really get used to that. And doubly so for optimizing database servers.

Redhat's strategy gains them certainty and loses them opportunity. That's certainly a niche that's done well for them, but there are also users with other needs. Oracle's strategy will be very popular with some of them. When Redhat brings RHEL6 to market there will be lots of required subsystem changes to get the new kernel. Some people will just want the new kernel and not want to change all their underlying dependencies, and Oracle is meeting that need. Eventually Fedora will adopt a rolling-release model and RHEL will track that (probably with more QA) but it's a hard problem and not well-solved yet.

It's great that we have such a vibrant market that there's room for so many approaches.

Re:Good for databases (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650854)

Apparently not watching it very closly, or you would know dstat will do what you want. Since 5.4 too.

Re:Good for databases (1)

Reez (65123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651202)

dstat is certainly fancy but doesn't provide more than iostat (from sysstat package), that is per-disk (or even partitions and NFS mounts) I/O activity.

iotop would bring *per thread* I/O activity, which can be a very useful tool sometimes.

Re:Good for databases (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651936)

dstat provides _per process_ per disk io usage data in relatively fine grained sampling windows?

That's what iotop provides, mind you.

Re:Good for databases (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651688)

In KDE, if you press ctrl+esc it pops up my "System Activity" app which has a lot of the features of iotop, and many more.

Innovation != Novelty (2, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650622)

To innovate means to make something new happen. It doesn't have to be radically new, just something that wasn't available before. In the real world, most innovations are pretty humble, but humble doesn't imply not useful.

Do you ever look at Crapware 7.0 and think they just added some 3D arrows for absolutely no reason? Now look at TFA and the reactions here, this is *precisely* why the marketers demand idiotic features.

If you've actually set up Oracle on a system, you quickly realize that a. it's hugely complicated but b. it's a solved problem so c. why am I going through all this pain when Oracle has done this already? Of course, they have, calling it OEL just makes it easy to explain to the boss.

And for anyone trying to maintain an Oracle system, this is a big deal. It is not an understatement that for the typical business, their Oracle database more or less *is* the business. You want something that's going to work, with no nonsense, and you want to keep it up to date.

What Oracle meant to say.... (2, Funny)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650626)

Oracle Linux is Unbreakable and better than Linux.

BUT Linux is bad mojo.... if you want a real OS and not a toy, use Oracle's Solaris.

Somehow they failed to add that last bit. Mixed messages from a VERY mixed up company.

Re:What Oracle meant to say.... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651128)

I don't get it. Does this mean that Oracle is run by Mr. Glass?

Re:What Oracle meant to say.... (1)

xant (99438) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651724)

God, I wish. Someone should push Ellison down some stairs and find out.

Modifications against mainline (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650642)

People may want to check the LWN discussion on the topic, which includes comments from Chris Mason and others concerning their improvements over vanilla 2.6.32:

http://lwn.net/Articles/406242/

Empire Building (1)

Alcemenes (460409) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650722)

I think this just fits in with the corporate IT empire building that has been going on lately. HP and Dell just finished a bidding war for 3PAR and now Oracle is making noise about "their" updated kernel. Just another enterprise IT infrastructure trying to stake its claim.

Unbreakable Linux? (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650760)

Whenever a company starts calling their product unbreakable or indestructible or unhackable or whatever, I start thinking Titanic.

Re:Unbreakable Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33652008)

Dear Marketers,

I hate you. Ear fuck yourself with a .45 automatic.

Sincerely,
A Geek on Slashdot

RTFM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650892)

They specifically state during the keynote that the announcement is an update to the new kernel with some enhancements for their own use.

This post is a moronic display of the op's inability to read.

Oracle's using a new Linux kernel? (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650928)

And here I thought they'd only just adopted Hurd.

Re:Oracle's using a new Linux kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33650946)

Haha great one. Too bad I don't have mod points.

this slashdot article is a lie (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33650938)

this kernel is not the same as RedHat's, there are improvements geared toward Oracle's DBMS

Troll Harder (4, Interesting)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651256)

So, let me get this straight. Oracle is "bad" because they announced that their distribution had a "modern" kernel, but it's "only" 2.6.32 with custom patches, not 2.6.35 which is totally almost 2 months old now so there's no excuse for it not to be in there!!!! And, Oracle is a jerk who just takes and takes without contributing back, because they are "only barely" in the top 20 contributors to the kernel (and the kernel is only one small part of Linux so basically they don't contribute at all). What a troll! At least the article is up-front about being written by a Novell employee. (Wait no it's not, it sort of slips that into the middle).

And Mr. Sour Grapes Novell employee is just pleased as punch over pointing out the "dirty secret" Oracle tried to hide, by publicly announcing that Oracle Linux would be running the 2.6.32 kernel, with custom patches to improve performance on certain hardware, and for Oracle software. How sneaky of them, you could never tell by reading that, that it's actually the 2.6.32 kernel (WHICH IS SO OLD HOW DARE THEY CALL IT MODERN).

Re:Troll Harder (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651448)

They are "bad" because they are claiming they have some magic to be faster than Red Hat, when the fact is that Red Hat supplies modern kernels for people who wants to run them.

Re:Troll Harder (2, Insightful)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652550)

you make a very good point... but be aware the guy mentions he is a FORMER employee of novell... it may sound like a tiny difference but it is significant... that means he moved on and he is not paid anymore by novell. generally when people quit it is because they are not satisfied with their former employee..

The Linux kernel likes it on top? (1)

JackCroww (733340) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651340)

Wouldn't they be sticking the new Linux kernel *under* their distribution?

This is really a non-issue ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33651438)

I'm not entirely sure why this story is even here (full disclosure: I work for Oracle). Oracle Enterprise Linux has always (admittedly, braggingly) been a RH clone with support provided by Oracle and various additional packages bundled in ... not news. Initially, I assumed Oracle was targeting RedHat for a takeover (they still may be) and this was an attempt to financially weaken the company before the hordes descended, but it now looks like maybe there were other motivations. In any case, the new kernel is different than the one that RH ships (you can run either the RH kernel or the new one shipped by Oracle) and it's been optimized for the sort of load that Oracle thinks their servers will encounter. Great! Hope it works! Why is this news? How did plainly available information get spun into some sort of conspiracy?

The Microsoft license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33651472)

When will Oracle be paying the Microsoft license?

Meh. (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651726)

Yesterday's slashticle already specified that they put a 2.6.32 kernel in. Nothing to see here, move along.

It is about the Oracle stack... (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 3 years ago | (#33651884)

Sure, you can use OEL for anything you might want - but, the folks using this are probably folks using Oracle for the OS, applications, and possibly even hardware. What this means the Oracle *applications* are going to have better support and tuning.

The big news from Oracle is that it's offering a "modern" Linux kernel that's supposed to offer better performance and support for newer hardware (like solid state disks), and is optimized for Oracle hardware and software.

In practice, it works out something like this. Lets say you call up with some sort of goofy DB or Weblogic issue. Support *has* your exact environment. The application developers may have also used that same environment for development, making this the 'native' build rather than some other platform that the codebase was ported to. It also sets the bar on what you can do with some of the newer kernel features. Sure, you could custom tweak your own kernel to get some goofy bit of hardware to work, but if it breaks the app and you have to call support... Think of it as more of a least common denominator for the Oracle dev folks.

RHEL, OEL, and CentOS are all the same bloody codebase. Thank $DEITY. Pick your support contract vehicle on the commercial side. The fact that commercial applications run very nicely on that cut of Linux is one of the reasons Red Hat has the following it does. (I've got Red Hat in my dead pool for companies to be acquired - I'm surprised something this strategic remained third party this long.)

Why? (1)

prudhvi (988493) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652012)

Why isn't there a greed tag. While Oracle and greed go hand in hand?

That's Colonel to you, Mister (1)

Yaddoshi (997885) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652170)

Someone has to take up the vacuum left by SCO, I suppose

"Unbreakable" - right (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652298)

There are things Oracle could use if they really wanted "unbreakable". There are some very tough microkernels available. LynxOS is certified to DO-178B leval A for safety-critical software, yet it can run Linux ABI binaries.

LynxOS drives quite a number of systems with serious firepower. The Navy Shipboard Self-Defense System, the "Multiple Missile Kill Vehicle", stuff like that. On the civilian side, LinxOS powers the Airbus navigation system.

There's a performance penalty over Linux, and LynxOS is not free. But if it really has to work, there are options.

New Sun Hardware Requires New Kernel Version (1)

Doc Hopper (59070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33652398)

The article is missing the point. The key pitch here is that you need to be running Oracle Enterprise Linux 5 Update 6 or newer to work on the latest generation of Sun x86 hardware. It's a big deal inside of Oracle because Oracle wants to be running on Oracle hardware, but is about 80% Dell stuff on the x86 side right now in the Oracle data centers that weren't Sun acquisitions. There's a substantial hardware refresh effort inside the company right now, temporarily making Oracle one of Oracle's biggest hardware customers.

But this is part of a pitch to existing customers: run our OS and you have full hardware support TODAY. Run Redhat and you'll have it when they release Redhat 6 or if they decide to backport new hardware features to their kernel in a few months or years. The announcement is a statement that Oracle -- for the first time -- is taking the lead in releasing a newer kernel ahead of Redhat, rather than waiting for the Redhat release first before releasing the slightly-tweaked-for-Oracle version in Oracle Enterprise Linux. It's driven by hardware needs, and for at least several months that will be a selling point to customers wanting the latest and greatest: use OEL4u5 or Solaris, not Redhat, or else you won't leverage the new hardware features effectively (if at all).

I actually think the compatibility issue may just boil down to the SAS driver update to work with Sun's latest chipset. But it's a bit of a show-stopper if you're not running OEL5u6, since you can't even install the operating system without the SAS driver update.

Larry Ellison (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33652400)

...is one of the biggest dickwads in the world.

I wish he would crash one of his airplanes into a mountain and fucking die in a fire.

Fuck you, Larry, you piece of shit.

Linux is not new and innovative either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33652534)

Well, Linux is not new and innovative either, it is a rehash of Unix. It is amazing what you open source zealots believe.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...