Red Hat CEO suggests Oracle is feeling the heat 81
Rob writes "The previously rosy relationship between Oracle Corp and Red Hat Inc appears to have
soured following Red Hat's acquisition of JBoss Inc and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's
suggestion that his company could move into the Linux business. Red Hat's chief executive,
Matthew Szulik, has written in response to a recent interview with Ellison in which
Ellison suggested the company would be interested in distributing and supporting Linux.
"Is it possible that the dominant provider of databases feels pressure from its
long-time partner, Red Hat, because of our recent purchase of an open source middleware
company, JBoss?" Szulik asked, although
he also played down suggestions of a "showdown" between the two companies."
Re:Nothing to worry about? (Score:1, Interesting)
Compared to JD Edwards or PeopleSoft, a pure RH acquisition by Larry would go faster than the could order his second Mamosa for breakfast.
I love when folks try to stir tech controversy that isn't there, like Apple threatening desktop share or OpenOffice beating Microsoft Office in features.
Cute, but totally misses the point.
Re:Nothing to worry about? (Score:3, Funny)
It's Mimosa, and they are served with Brunch, you ghastly heathen. :)
Not where I work. (Score:2)
Now luckily it does not matter much to me because we use SUSE for webservers, databases, SAP etc.
Link to the actual letter. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is also a no-reg-required mirror [zoss.org.zw] at the zimbabwe open source software society.
The most intersting part of the letter is where szulik puts a new twist on the (always perfect) car / computer analogy Well put.
Re:Link to the actual letter. (Score:2)
very many of todays projects are today started on linux/jboss combo just because of the low startup cost. if the project becomes massive, it will become cheaper to have oracle than maintaining an complicated jboss combination with many dependancies from different software producers.
i don't even see these products in the same league, redhat+jboss isn't really comparable with oracle if you take a look deeper what oracle has to offer. sure it's ex
Re:Link to the actual letter. (Score:1)
But along came an oil shortage and high gas prices, and coupled with the "continuous improvement" cycles of the Japanese auto manufacturers, in a matter of years they had arguably a better product than the domestic autos. Wooing the customer with things like no argument warranty also got them
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:2)
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:2)
Flawed logic. What happens is that the demands of the high-end continually increase, and the performance of both open source competitors and Oracle improve at the same time. Oracle retains its margin. The things that oracle's database can cope with are awesome. I have hear
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:1)
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:2)
What evidence do you have that it increases in a particular manner?
Sorry, but I just don't believe the 'ever dwindling' argument. It seems to m
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:1)
A couple of examples:
There will always be some customers that want/need faster/better, but
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:2)
1. Look at the number of people who are still using Microsoft Office 97. Why don't they upgrade when "better" versions are available? Because the version they have fulfills their needs.
2. Similarly, the number of companies still using Exchange 5.5 is staggeringly high. Why haven't they upgraded? Because the version they have fulfills their needs.
There will always be some customers that want/need faster/better, but rarely can you build a $13 bi
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:1)
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:2)
So the real question is whether or not open source can innovate fast enough and provide people with an incen
Re:What a comoditized market means. (Score:1)
Which also sucks pretty bad, just because there's so much of it (the proverbial "needle in a haystack" problem). Just try to figure out how to use some of the advanced features (e.g., LogMiner) from the Oracle docs. More doesn't necessarily mean better.
Showdown? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Showdown? (Score:1)
Showdown? lol (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Showdown? lol (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a funny thing about market economies. The market produces what people have shown an interest in paying money for. If Oracle were to buy Red Hat with the intention of shutting Red Hat down, then you can basically guarantee that several other "Enterprise" Linux distributions would spring up as if by magic. This is especially true if Oracle paid current market prices for Red Hat. The source code in question would still be available, and there would be a large community looking for a new home.
In the long run Oracle is likely to have the same problems as Sun. Like Sun, Oracle's real problem is that Red Hat offers a software stack that is competitive with Oracle's software stack while maintaining an R&D budget that is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than Oracle's budget. Oracle's size is precisely the problem. As commodity software becomes more and more widespread the ridiculous profit margins that Oracle needs to survive will get harder and harder to produce. Sure, there are lots of Oracle customers that can't really afford to move to a lower cost but less featureful software stack, but Oracle is going to find that an increasing number of its customers are unwilling to pay for features that they don't really need or use. Lots of technical folks get all excited about "Enterprise" software, but in the long run inexpensive commodity software that actually gets used tends to move up the technology stack and crowd out software that relies on the huge profit margins that can be found at the high end of the spectrum. Red Hat's cost structure is designed around taking advantage of the much lower profit margins associated with commodity Free Software. Oracle's cost structure, on the other hand, is designed around the much higher profit margins that Oracle has historically been able to squeeze out of the market. Oracle can pretend that it can compete with Red Hat, but really it can't, not without shedding a lot of its workforce. If Oracle were to lower its workforce so that it was competitive with Red Hat then customers that are currently paying huge margins for Oracle products and services would undoubtedly take their business elsewhere.
Re:Showdown? lol (Score:2)
s/technical folks/clueless managers/ [1]
[1] clued managers don't get excited about "enterprise" stuff. They use the best tool for the job, regardless of what the salescritter says.
Windbags (Score:3, Insightful)
And so the pissing contest begins. Why? Of what possible use is it? None. Look, Oracle wants in to the Linux market, so it can compete both within the open source arena and have a chance at digging into Microsoft's market share. I've said repeatedly this move is about 5 years overdue. Since it appears Oracle is not interested in Red Hat or Novell (I said appears; never let it be said Ellison couldn't change his mind in a heartbeat), they'll go after someone else, like Ubuntu. This doesn't stand to hurt Red Hat or Novell; any Linux distribution they swallow up is going to end up having its creativity choked off by the bloated development structure that is Oracle.
Move along -- nothing to care about here. We'll see how it pans out in the marketplace when and if Oracle takes the plunge. Sabre rattling at this point is just silly.
Re:Windbags (Score:3, Insightful)
These things at least get decision makers to stop for a moment and have "Oracle" or "Red Hat" enter their thought stream.
Re:Windbags (Score:1)
Who says they need to go after anyone? They could simply take the source and fork off of it, like Whitebox and Centos did.
Re:Windbags (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Windbags (Score:2, Interesting)
I worked at a company with a large Oracle installation (8xCPU, 12 TB of data) running on RedHat. The machine would freeze every once in a while, requiring a costly reboot. We talked to RedHat who told us we needed to use a program to dump the machine state (there was no core file as the box didn't oops) so they could examine it. There was a way to do this through the serial port, but with 32 GB of memory dumping the machine state would
mysql? (Score:2, Insightful)
But who needs SQL at all? (Score:2)
Re:But who needs SQL at all? (Score:2)
A path? (Score:2)
Re:But who needs SQL at all? (Score:2)
Re:mysql? (Score:1, Insightful)
b) LOL.
c) Riiiiight.
d) Oracle doesn't cost 200k per copy.
Damn. Quit spewing lies man.
How the hell did this get mod'd +5? Insightful? LOL! Damn troll.
Re:mysql? (Score:3, Insightful)
While MySQL will be more than enough for many uses, there are some situations where using it instead of something like Oracle is irresponsible, if not downright criminal.
Saying that MySQL can compete with Oracle in terms of speed, features, and clustering capabilities is an argument that is not grounded in reality.
Re:mysql? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, nobody cares about most of the extra features. So let's change B) to: supports all of the features of Oracle that most people care about
Did you know that Oracle comes with something to do a text search on almost any document type, including those accessible through URLs? And that you can do fuzzy searches based on that, and that the database can learn to give better results via an expert system? It's a pretty nice search engine. Does MySQL come with a search engine?
Also, if I've said it once, I've said it a million times: don't exaggerate. The personal use version is free, and Oracle is $5k per copy for the one-processor, coarse-grained security model. The high-end one for clustering that you seem to be thinking of is $40k, not $200k.
My guess is that the market share of stupid people who buy Oracle when all they need is MySQL is dying. However, there really are people who want to do extremely sophisticated stuff that only Oracle is providing. Oracle's real up-and-coming competition for their real market is Google, I think.
If Google will do all the indexing and does a better job of managing your data without you having to even configure it, then why should you manage it with Oracle?
Re:mysql? (Score:2)
Maintanence is 22% of purchase cost annually, which is also pretty high industry-wise. That I've never really seen altered, has always been 22%... but it is p
Re:mysql? (Score:1)
Re:mysql? (Score:2)
No. And there isn't anything near an expert system front-end on searching in MySQL. It doesn't know file systems, and all it can do is the equivalent of a fuzzy grep to search text. Fuzzy is a relative term, and in this case, I mean more when I say fuzzy than what MySQL does.
Don't get me wrong, though: I currently only use one app that needs Oracle. All the rest are much more highly suited for MySQL.
Re:mysql? (Score:1)
That being said, license costs are not the most expensive part of the equation. The developers and DBAs that support these systems are more expensive than the systems themselves.
Yes, software can be pricey, but developers and administ
Re:mysql? (Score:2)
When you have a database that a) is faster than Oracle and b) supports all the features of Oracle and c) can be clustered easier than Oracle and best of all d) it does not cost $200,000 per copy
I think out of all of those reasons it is d) is the one making more than 90% of the impact on oracle's business.
Most companies are starting to realize that they don't need the 5 million features that oracle offers (and charges for). So they are looking around for something cheaper/easier to manage etc... He
Re:mysql? (Score:1)
Gosh, I'll say - if it in fact costs that much. Oops, it rarely does - a quick check of Oracle's web site could have refuted the original claim.
Most companies are starting to realize that they don't need the 5 million features that oracle offers (and charges for).
It's fascinating to see this line of reasoning. I have two counterpoints:
1) Have you noticed that MySQL is striving to inclu
Re:mysql? (Score:3, Interesting)
> a) is faster than Oracle
The only situation that mysql can beat oracle in is probably highly-indexed read-mostly content management use with its caching front-end. In reporting read-only environments mysql's lack of parallelism & partitioning means that Oracle can easily be *40x* the speed of mysql.
> b) supports all the features of Oracle
Don't even know where to start on this one. MySQL doesn't even support all the features of Postgres
Market Share (Score:2)
Firstly, that's just not true by any stretch of the imagination. Oracle makes more money than RedHat's , Boss, or MySQL's combined annual revenue in a matter of HOURS.
Let's also recognize that "market" implies economic exchange. Share of market is $revenue$, not merely downloads or usage. If everyone runs an unsupported copy of MySQL, it doesn't really hurt Oracle too much in the short run, as there's no money to be made there, and it's not Oracle's target market. It
Everything old is new again (Score:5, Interesting)
It dates from 1998, during the initial launch of Oracle 8i. Since then, and arguably for even longer, Oracle has had a consistent strategy of undermining the role of the operating system by taking on more and more of the critical duties into its own code base. Linux plays into this strategy marvelously well. Except, here's the rub. Redhat is not interested in the furtherance of this agenda. Redhat wants the operating system to remain a key part of the enterprise IT infrastructure.
I wrote an interesting article on my blog [pythian.com] titled "Oracle & Linux, Ancient History" on this subject last week, and the article links to the web archive of my original post about Oracle and Linux and Oracle's strategy to undermine the OS from 1998. The original article's title was "Why Oracle 8i Will Remodel the OS Landscape" and ultimately what we're seeing now in the tension between Oracle and Redhat is the materialization of Oracle's vision of the operating systems' role chafing on its longstanding partner.
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Pythian DBAs post on our group blog at http://www.pythian.com/blogs/ [pythian.com].
Re:Everything old is new again (Score:1)
Good idea for Oracle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good idea for Oracle (Score:4, Insightful)
-WS
Re:Good idea for Oracle (Score:2)
That is consistent with my limited experience with IBM hardware and software. IBM is so huge that nobody there knows more than 0.00001% of what is going on. This may have changed from November of 2000 when I first and last dealt with them, but that was only an install of a project that didn't go much further than an install. The install was ro
Re:Good idea for Oracle (Score:2)
Re:Good idea for Oracle (Score:4, Interesting)
Oracle have since removed reference to it from their site.
Re:Good idea for Oracle (Score:1)
Oracle have since removed reference to it from their site.
Any speculation as to why they stopped developing it? (or am I missing something?)
Re:Good idea for Oracle (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft does this to remain competative.
Dear Larry Ellison (Score:2, Funny)
Now, that's a consultant fee. Send me my check to my address.
Yours truely screwed by Oracle consultants,
Re:Dear Larry Ellison (Score:1)
Make sure you charge them a proper consulting rate [dba-oracle.com], or they won't think they're getting their money's worth. . .
Linux Success Puts It in Oracle's Crosshairs (Score:1)
Already last fall, one might theorize that Oracle Corp. had decided it had been feeding Linux enough, and that it should start watering some other ecosystems:
Oracle Selects Solaris as preferred OS [oracle.com]
Re:Linux Success Puts It in Oracle's Crosshairs (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please, that was so obviously a bone thrown to Sun. I'm sure it was not done without some consideration given by Sun to Oracle. Plus, it's easy to announce that Solaris is your preferred OS when ... well ... Solaris is your preferred OS. The market for Oracle boxes running on Linux is growing rapidly and m
What does Oracle want and what does Oracle need? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
Because virtualization is hot in databases. Having lots of servers spinning idle that you may need (and paying Oracle for the privilege) is costly, and Larry sees market share, well, if not eroding, then certainly being nibbled at. By shipping a distro with Oracle preconfigured, he:
1. Shows a commitment to his customers for a l
Who cares about Red Hat right now? (Score:1, Troll)