Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Red Hat Dismisses Threat Posed by Oracle and MS

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the well-of-course-he-would-say-that dept.

Red Hat Software 95

Rob writes "Red Hat Inc's executive vice president of worldwide sales, Alex Pinchev, has dismissed the impact that Oracle Corp's entry into the Linux support business could have on Red Hat, insisting Oracle does not really know what it is doing. Pinchev also described Microsoft's recent interoperability and patent peace deal with Novell Inc as a "non-event" and dismissed the suggestion that Linux users are at risk of a patent infringement lawsuit from Redmond."

cancel ×

95 comments

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

Yawn... (0, Offtopic)

geeksdave (799038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195344)

I'll stick with Cent OS thanks... BTW first post for me???

Re:Yawn... (2)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195368)

agreed, i lost interest in redhat when they released fedora.

Re:Yawn... (1)

tuck3r (987067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195474)

good point, why would you pay for something you can get for free?

Whaaaa??? (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195482)

I'll stick with Cent OS thanks...

And...

agreed, i lost interest in redhat when they released fedora.

If you're running CentOS, how can you possibly say you've "lost interest in Red Hat"? The two are not compatible, CentOS for all practical purposes is Red Hat without the support contract. Same OS under the hood.

Real *nix users dismiss RedHat (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17196738)

agreed, i lost interest in redhat when they released fedora.


good point, why would you pay for something you can get for free?


Ditto. Besides, RedHat plain sucks. It is not really a Linux at all, it does not adhere to any conventions, and is horribly unstable and hard on hardware, and they have the gall to want money for it! Parasites.

Slackware, FreeBSD and QNX all have more in common then Redhat does with a standard Linux distribution.

Frankly, I can't see why anyone with any sense would use RedHat. Perhaps it is just another one of those products for those people with more money than brains, the market will always find such fools and exploit them.

"Red Hat Dismisses Threat Posed by Oracle and MS"

So what, real *nix users dismiss RedHat altogether.

Re:Real *nix users dismiss RedHat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17199940)

Please explian to the lads here how redhat isn't really a linux. Seems to be running a linux kernel and a heap of open source userland stuff, desktop or server. Guess I am naieve but I always thought that meant "linux". I know I certainly don't get it. As to them sucking or not, always semed to work good for me, although now I use Fedora. Price is right-free as in beer and speech, updates come fast, plenty of variety to choose from with apps in their repositories. I used to pay for the boxed RH workstation until the big price increase, but for what I need, Fedora works just fine. If you are running a business, meh, just a business expense, if your work can't swing it to make money on top of that piddling expense, perhas look for another way to make money. You want totally free, use one of the clones, they still don't care. They follow the GPL, they have all their packages and kernels free off their servers, they contribute back a lot of code. What exactly is wrong with that? You don't even have to run bleeding edge, you can stay a whole generation or two behind releases into much more stable-land and they still do the security updates for you. What more do you want from them?

In other words, are you just bored ripping wings off flies or what?

Re:Real *nix users dismiss RedHat (1)

TrilateralRegression (991429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204364)

Guess I am naieve but I always thought that meant "linux".
Doesn't nux kernel + OSS userland apps = GNU/Linux?

[/dryhumour]

Re:Yawn... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195502)


I'll stick with Cent OS thanks... BTW first post for me???


And I'll be sticking with Ubuntu. But that seems hardly relevant to the question at hand, unless you're on Oracle admin. Why would you run Oracle on Cent OS? This would be a configuration that's not supported by Oracle, so you're on your own if you have serious technical difficulties that you don't have immediate answers for and cannot be solved by googling for answers.

Re:Yawn... (3, Informative)

Undertaker43017 (586306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195670)

"This would be a configuration that's not supported by Oracle, so you're on your own if you have serious technical difficulties that you don't have immediate answers for and cannot be solved by googling for answers"

While that is true, how would Oracle know?

I run RHEL and Oracle on my production servers and CentOS and Oracle on my dev/test servers. When Oracle asks, the configuration is RHEL and Oracle, even though 99% of the time the problem has occurred on dev/test. I haven't seen a problem yet that occurs on CentOS that doesn't also occur on RHEL, they are the same OS, just compiled by different groups.

Re:Yawn... (1)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202596)

how would oracle know?

try log a support call :)

after all, beyond support what are you paying oracle for that you cant get from postgres? and if oracle really is what you need, then the cost of oracle is gonna be waaaay more than an rhel license.

Re:Yawn... (2, Informative)

Undertaker43017 (586306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17206136)

"try log a support call :)"

You missed my point I log support calls all the time with Oracle, and when they ask what platform I am on I tell them RHEL, even though 99% of the time the problem was discovered on CentOS (but is always replicatible on RHEL)

Postgres is a great product and we use it on a couple of our smaller projects, but when we have tested them side by side on our high volume applications, Postgres falls short, not too short but enough to justify using Oracle instead. I really wanted Postgres to work for us, because it is a dream to maintain compared to Oracle and it would have saved us major money.

Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (4, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195404)

"They are delivering no innovation, delayed patches, delayed releases, no real knowledge of open source and no involvement with the community, so where is the value?" he asked.


Oracle's typical answer is that Oracle will only be supported by platforms blessed by Oracle. See this FAQ from Oracle [oracle.com] , particular the part on p.4 about the 'Transition Path for Red Hat and Novell customers' In particular, this means that Oracle in the future will probably only be supported on Unbreakable Linux. Have problems? Not running on Unbreakable Linux? You won't get support. It's that simple. Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

JeepFanatic (993244) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195508)

this means that Oracle in the future will probably only be supported on Unbreakable Linux
I can dream though that perhaps the more Oracle limits the options available for using their systems, more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL). My personal philosophy is that I choose not to use products that limit how/where I can use them.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195636)

I can dream though that perhaps the more Oracle limits the options available for using their systems, more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL). My personal philosophy is that I choose not to use products that limit how/where I can use them.


That's a good philosophy to have, but unfortunately, the sad reality is that your average PHB has heard of Oracle and knows that it has the reputation of being a rock-solid reliable product. Postgres and MySQL are unknown by many PHBs, and even worse, MySQL has the reputation of not being so reliable and not so high-performing, despite the best efforts of MySQL AB, which has put a ton of effort into MySQL to improve in areas of performance, availability, and reliability. Postgres is nice, and I think for all but high-end clustered databases, it can give Oracle a run for its money, but for now Oracle has carved itself out a nice niche being a premiere database player, along with IBM's DB2.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197688)

... but for now Oracle has carved itself out a nice niche being a premiere database player, along with IBM's DB2.
 
Oracle's problem, though, is that they are being driven upmarket by their lower cost competitors. This is is the same dynamic that led to PCs destroying the minicomputer industry and started to threaten Intel, until they (wisely) realized that they couldn't abandon the low-margin part of their business. Clayton Christensen [claytonchristensen.com] wrote a pretty good book about this; here's [amazon.com] a very good talk [itconversations.com] by him.

The question is, how must faster are the low-cost DBs (MySQL, Postgres, MSSQL, etc.) improving with respect to customers' needs? That's the key item that will determine Oracle's fate. Oracle's Linux strategy is an interesting move; I can't profess to be smart enough to predict how it'll pan out.

Smokin' The Herb... (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195678)

...more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL).

I like Postgres and MySQL as much as the next guy, they both have a lot going for them, but come on. Are they really as solid as Oracle for "mission critical" 100% up-time applications? I think they have the potential to reach that point, but maybe not yet there.

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (3, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195974)

not only that- how many free db's provide a supported back end for peoplesoft?

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17197000)

not only that- how many free db's provide a supported back end for peoplesoft?


Peoplesoft? That rinky-dink piece of shit that so many people are sucked in by? I could write a more sophisticated, polished and functional application with my eyes closed and one hand tied behind my back. What does peoplesoft have going for it? A name, that is all.

Peoplesoft reminds me of SAP. Software for suckers.

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (1)

mrcparker (469158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197640)

If you are a small company, sure. But, Peoplesoft has lots and lots of HR information, tax information, and insurance information that your custom app wouldn't have included. It knows about things like child support, and how the tax system works in almost every city in the world. I thought that it was a crap system, until I had someone walk me though the HR module and the Financials and I was blown away.

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17197772)

Wow. Stop drinking the kook-aid and think for yourself. Have you ever actually used either of those? Of course, not. If you had, you would not have that attitude. Come on dude, this "I'm a software maverick" or "I'm cool because I'm saying BS that sounds anti-establishment.." stuff has to stop. It doesn't make you look the way you think. It is so 1990's and very childish.

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (1)

BlueCodeWarrior (638065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198418)

My university uses Peoplesoft, and it sucks. I can't say one good thing about it. Then again, this is from a Student's perspective, it's not like I'm administering it or anything...

Sony OE Did It... (1)

karmachild (1036700) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196658)



EnterpriseDB goes mission critical at Sony Online Entertainment
By Jack Loftus, News Writer

Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE), the online games giant responsible for popular games like Everquest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies, will migrate to open source EnterpriseDB Advanced Server 8.1.

[...] "There is certainly demand picking up for open source databases, and we are going to be seeing more and more of these larger companies adopting an open source database strategy," Yuhanna said. "With Sony -- it was dealing with lots of data -- online gaming data -- and paying $40,000 a processor to a company like Oracle, and that certainly was adding up."

http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalCon tent/0,289142,sid39_gci1174189,00.html [techtarget.com]

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198164)

Is Oracle really solid for "mission critical" 100% up-time applications?

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17200930)

Is Oracle really solid for "mission critical" 100% up-time applications?


Yes.

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204538)

Idiot fanboy.

Re:Smokin' The Herb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204774)

Is Oracle really solid for "mission critical" 100% up-time applications?
Amazon and eBay think so.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

Decaff (42676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17199066)

I can dream though that perhaps the more Oracle limits the options available for using their systems, more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL). My personal philosophy is that I choose not to use products that limit how/where I can use them.

That is fine, and there is an easy way to avoid the trap - develop for your database using a high-quality ORM (Object-Relational Mapping) tool that abstracts away the database differences. Hibernate is popular, or I use JDO (either Kodo or JPOX). This is not some ideal - it really works, and works efficiently. I'm currently working on a large application which will end up with hundreds of tables. I need only change a few lines in the mappings to switch between PostgreSQL and Oracle. The mapping tool will do all the work for you, including generating efficient, indexed and constrained database schemas from your object models.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (3, Interesting)

BokLM (550487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195560)

Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

Or hopefully they'll migrate instead their existing Oracle installations to MySQL or PostgreSQL or anything that is free software.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (4, Insightful)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196110)

Or hopefully they'll migrate instead their existing Oracle installations to MySQL or PostgreSQL or anything that is free software.

I can only speak to the situation at the company I've been with for the last eight years. We're pretty big, and have some large data requirements. There is absolutely zero chance that we will move away from Oracle in the next ten years (at least). The cost to licence, administer, and maintain our Oracle databases is trivial next to the cost of moving.

Other "Oracle shops" where professional acquaintances of mine are working are in a similar situation. The cost to move is MUCH larger than the cost to stay, and Oracle works extremely well.

For us, specifically, PostgreSQL and MySQL are not nearly powerful enough anyway. We really do need the beast.

I keep hearing that "move to an open source product" mantra about databases, but as near as I can tell it only makes sense for relatively trivial, simple systems to do so. It's not that more complex systems can't be built on the open source product - it's that once you're already running, there has to be a very serious gain to be had in switching.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

ozone_sniffer (778249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17201540)

WARNING: SLIGHTLY OFFTOPIC AHEAD

For us, specifically, PostgreSQL and MySQL are not nearly powerful enough anyway. We really do need the beast.


That's because the software in your company is poorly designed. Don't shoot me yet, please read on. All software I've seen, including the ones I work/worked on, are poorly designed. Ideally, every software should be implemented in a way to make such changes, if not trivial, at least possible, regarding time and cost constraints.

The problem is that what we learn in academia is not what we face in every day software development, when we are employed by companies. Companies are very good at squeezing cost out in short term, but they don't realize the consequences in the long run. To be aware of such consequences requires at least a CS degree, or overly well-informed managers.

The problem is that (AFAIK), most managers don't come from a CS background and are always poorly informed of at least half the business of a software development company (the half which is actually developing the software).

The bottom line is: decision makers in the IT industry are almost always under-qualified and fail to seek relevant advice. The mess we see in said industry is, mainly, of their making.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17201918)

That's because the software in your company is poorly designed. Don't shoot me yet, please read on.

I have read on, as requested.

We have large databases running on clusters, with backup database clusters located in separated datacentres. They're running half-mast as hot standbys, continuously being synched, with
We are an industrial company with data streaming in from over 8000 miles of equipment. Anything that stops our systems costs us huge amounts of money, and puts us in regulatory danger, so we simply cannot afford to run without that redundancy.

We have a couple dozen systems ranging from realtime collection of field data to scheduling/predictive crunchers, as well as financial and regulatory ones. We have a huge number of PL/SQL programs that run on-demand, or on a nightly schedule.

A blanket claim that the software is poorly designed is just incorrect. Some companies NEED the kind of horsepower Oracle has to offer. Some don't. We definitely do.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17206594)

Ideally, every software should be implemented in a way to make such changes, if not trivial, at least possible, regarding time and cost constraints.

Nice in theory, but it inherently either prohibits any company from implementing software that does $TASK better than anyone else, because they are constrained by having to retain compatibility with all the software that doesn't do $TASK very well, if at all, or it ignores the possibility of any $TASK that isn't designed and specified by a committee.

Or, to put it another way, for the result you want, all "innovation" - especially from individuals/small groups - has to cease, *OR* every developer has to work in collaboration with every other developer and sacrifice their ability to create a competitive advantage.

In other words, it ain't going to happen. Ever. As you note, the real world brutally intrudes on academic theory at the point where real money gets involved.

Even in academia (1)

j_w_d (114171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17212906)

You learn that databases tend to do one of two things without constant vigilance on the part of the maintainer. One route is users who don't want to learn to do things properly and "migrate" their "personal data" to flat files and then want help extracting what they have actually destroyed - "but it was there!" - or can't figure out why the "inefficient" two fields (a character and a numeric) they merged into a single field will no longer sort properly. Two, cowboys move in and small data tables proliferate to the point that structure has turned into a morass where queries simply can't be trusted. Migrating SHOULD be designed for but ...

Probably not... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196144)

I use both MySQL and PostgreSQL and they are very good. They are not a plug in replacement for Oracle.
Do your applications support MySQL or PostgreSQL? If not too bad.
Do you want to re-write your applications for MySQL or PostgreSQL?

It really isn't as simple as just migrating. To be honest MySQL and PostgreSQL are not as good as Oracle for very large databases that require high availability.
The can probably do about 90% of what Oracle can do but some places need that extra 10%.

Re:Probably not... (1)

MartinG (52587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198296)

It really isn't as simple as just migrating. To be honest MySQL and PostgreSQL are not as good as Oracle for very large databases that require high availability.
The can probably do about 90% of what Oracle can do but some places need that extra 10%


This is rather vague. Specifically, what do you require in your application that PostgreSQL does not offer?

Re:Probably not... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17200718)

Nothing. That is why I use PostgreSQL. My applications fit in to that 90% that PostgreSQL does so well.
From what I have seen PostgreSQL doesn't handle high availability clustering as well as Oracle.

The real issue is what is the Path of least resistance. If your in an Oracle shop and you have a lot of experience in Oracle and a lot of applications that run on Oracle then the Path of least resistance will be to change distributions to one that Oracle supports instead of porting your code to a new database.
In my code I worked very hard to keep it as database neutral as possible and it still would be a HUGE pain to port from PostgreSQL to MySQL, Oracle, or DB2.
From what I have seen MySQL is a brilliant solution for databases that are write a little but read a lot in nature. Like Slashdot and many CMSs.
My big database application is a lot more symmetrical and really needs to be careful about data integrity. When I wrote it MySQL lacked transactions and row level locking. The only has around 200,000 records so it isn't that big but it grows by more than a thousand records a week and has never corrupted a single record. I know that is what a SQL database server is SUPPOSED to do but I came from the PC environment and dealt a lot with XBase on networks...
I still have to deal with that every now and then. On XBase systems data corruption is a way of life. XBase started as a single user system and I feel that is universally the wrong answer for a multi-user database. I have never written any code that pushes data into an XBase system thank goodness so maybe it is just that I keep running into really bad applications.

For me and many many other people I would say PostgreSQL is a great solution. However I just don't think that it is better than Oracle at everything.
Give the PostgreSQL team sometime and that may change but even if it does staying with Oracle might still might be the right solution for some places.
The old saying is, if it isn't broke don't fix it.

Re:Probably not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17202764)

>> ...very large databases that require high availability. >> The can probably do about 90% of what Oracle can do but some places need that extra 10%

> This is rather vague. Specifically, what do you require in your application that PostgreSQL does not offer?

The initial point is about the DBMS, not the application specifically. An effective DBMS will hide, to some extent, the very large and HA implications from the application.

The following is a comparison to DB2 LUW to Oracle's DataGuard. (Postgres roughly falls into the same column as DB2 in this context.) http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/availabili ty/htdocs/DataGuardHADR.html [oracle.com]

[ granted the app in this specific case would need to know what DB to fail over to. ]

Some may throw up the answer in Postgres is to install triggers everywhere to get this done. Anyone who does that is is missing the point. Does everyone need multisite, multiple point in time failover databases? No. Do some folks? yes.

With SAP R/3, use MaxDB. (1)

haraldm (643017) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197552)

Still not really free, but you can keep the platform while giving Oracle the finger. Migrating SAP to MaxDB: nice business for the consulting industry.

Larry, that was a mistake.

Problem? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195584)

Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

Not a lawyer, not even a pompous Slashdot-Talk-Like-A-Yale-Grad-But-Have-No-Real-Cl ue-Lawyer... But... Are there anti-trust issues with this idea of Oracle only on Oracle Linux?

Re:Problem? (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195726)

Not a lawyer, not even a pompous Slashdot-Talk-Like-A-Yale-Grad-But-Have-No-Real-Cl ue-Lawyer... But... Are there anti-trust issues with this idea of Oracle only on Oracle Linux?


Are there anti-trust issues with SQL Server only on Windows Server?

Re:Problem? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196500)

Are there anti-trust issues with SQL Server only on Windows Server?

It's not quite the same situation. SQL Server has never ran on any other platform. Currently, Oracal does run on a variety of platforms.

Re:Problem? (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197400)

Sure. Oracle runs on Solaris, Windows, AIX, and HP-UX, I think. It's just that if you want to run Oracle on Linux, despite Oracle's words to the contrary, I think in the not-so-distant future you will most likely be running it on Unbreakable Linux.

But even if you consider the remote possibility that Oracle might shut off every other platform, even then, you still wouldn't have anti-trust issues. Oracle has nothing near a monopoly in relational database management software. And nothing prevents Microsoft from writing SQL Server for UNIX or Mac OS X or Linux, other than the fact that Microsoft wants companies to use its server platform rather than UNIX, the current market leader.

Re:Problem? (2, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195808)

Not really as Oracle do not have a monopoly when it comes to databases. If anything its probably good business practice for Oracle, since it reduces the amount of potential system configuration's that they have to deal with.

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17195958)

If anything its probably good business practice for Oracle, since it reduces the amount of potential system configuration's that they have to deal with.

Maybe, but that's not an idea compatible with GPLv3 standing on DRM, so obviously, it's from the Devel.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17195664)

Oracle's typical answer is that Oracle will only be supported by platforms blessed by Oracle.

Unlikely. Ellison is a blustering motormouth, but he isn't stupid. He wanted to put pressure on Red Hat because they were pressuring him -- hence the whole support for Red Hat drama. Oracle won't be going Oracle-platform-only anytime soon.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

jan de bont (702726) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195786)

You say that Oracle will support only on Unbreakable, and link to a document from Oracle that says the exact opposite. From page 5:

Will Oracle continue to support customers that are using Oracle products on Red Hat RHEL, Novell SLES, and Asianux?,

Yes. Oracle is fully committed to all of its customers that have deployed or will deploy Oracle products on other Linux distributions that are currently supported, including Red Hat, Novell and Asianux. We will continue to certify and offer support for Oracle products running on these Linux distributions. For operating system issues, users will need to work with their vendor.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17200286)

For now that is Oracle's official stance. But don't bet on it being their stance forever.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (3, Insightful)

Azarael (896715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195864)

My suspicion is that no matter what they say in their FAQ, they will continue to provide support for other Linux flavours(for the big customers at least). Do you think a customer Like Amazon which probably has 1000's (or more) Oracle installations is going to migrate the OS's on all of those machines? Not likely. The second you start letting vendors dictate major components in your IT infrastructure is the second you're screwed.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196568)

Amazon which probably has 1000's (or more) Oracle installations is going to migrate the OS's on all of those machines? Not likely.

And certainly not for the cost per CPU that Oracal will want to charge them for Unbreakable Linux...

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. (1)

burnin1965 (535071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196398)

Thats funny, on page four of that pdf you linked to it says:

Will Oracle continue to support other operating systems?
Yes. Oracle has a thirty-year history of supporting Oracle products on numerous popular operating systems. Unbreakable Linux does nothing to decrease our commitment to other operating systems such as WindowsTM, other distributions of Linux, or UNIXTM environments.


So "other distributions of Linux" seems to contradict your conclusion that "Not running on Unbreakable Linux? You won't get support. It's that simple.".

I wouldn't put it past Larry to attempt such a trick but when it comes down to it Oracle does what the customer wants so if the customer wants Oracle on Red Hat's linux distro then its likely Oracle will continue to support that platform.

IMO Oracle as a linux provider is a dead end. Larry has repeatedly made statements to the effect that developing for open source is a bad idea because you give your best ideas to the competition. Obviously with that mentality Oracle has no plans to put any significant effort into linux that may provide an advantage to their competitors.

Oracle linux is a dead end. Red Hat's response "Unfakeable Linux" says it all, Oracle is a fake linux provider.

Oracle *hopes* strong competition is overlooked (1)

toby (759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204954)

they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

Perhaps Oracle customers faced with this sour ultimatum might find it attractive to keep their current platform and try MySQL (more flexible, faster, lower costs [mysql.com] ) or Greenplum (100x as fast as Oracle [greenplum.com] ) instead...

Things don't always pan out for the faltering Emperor.

Titanic Linux (0, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195518)

Sounds like he's trying to cover things up.

Oracle enters Linux - "not a big deal".

Microsoft enters Linux - "nothing to worry about".

Sure thing dude. No problems. And that isn't an iceberg on the horizon.

Re:Titanic Linux (1)

wsanders (114993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196486)

>> Oracle enters Linux - "not a big deal".

35 Cds required for installation, apps only run efficiently on 8-core CPU with 16 GB of memory and 2 TB of disk space. All GNU utils ported to SQL stored procedures.

>> Microsoft enters Linux - "nothing to worry about".

The only Linux ever devised that is rootable on port 135 out of the box. Daily patches. And it has Dell PERC-2 support!

OTOH, RedHat ES is more expensive than Solaris (and a lot fo other OSes.)

Oracle support can be good for Red Hat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17195574)

One nice thing about Linux is that you can get support for many vendors.
With Oracle now offering support for Red Hat Linux, that really just means that if Red Hat support ever started to suck (say, Microsoft pulls a Novell on them), there are alternative vendors you can choose from. Debian has similar, in the sense that HP offers paid support.

This is something you'll never see with SuSE anymore, though - thanks to the Microsoft IP that's apparently in there (noone denied it yet - Novell only said they didn't publically admit it) - you couldn't buy SuSE support from Oracle or HP or anyone else outside of Microsoft and Novell. (oh, and note that Novell doesn't protect your business from being sued from Microsoft anyway - it just delays it for a few years)

In related news... (0, Flamebait)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195702)

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin dismisses threat of Adolph Hitler to European political stability. "He's just some misunderstood painter," the PM was quoted as saying.

Facts, sometimes do not matter (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195772)

Pinchev also described Microsoft's recent interoperability and patent peace deal with Novell Inc as a "non-event" and dismissed the suggestion that Linux users are at risk of a patent infringement lawsuit from Redmond."


While Microsoft's recent interoperability and patent peace deal with Novell Inc might indeed be a "non-event", and Linux users might not be at any risk of a Microsoft lawsuit, these "facts" do not always matter.

What matters is the perception these ramblings create. Do we remember the FUD about Linux Microsoft used to tout in early 2001? It seemed to work. All over a sudden, PHBs feared this Linux phenomenon and some [Linux] deals failed not because of facts but because of this FUD.


There was another piece of FUD when it came to support. Ballmer used to say, "Who do you run to when you need support on Linux? Do you run to RedHat, Novell, the guys at OSDL, IBM? It was all FUD but achieved some success at dissuading folks from using Linux.


The other untruth was one on installation. While software on some Linux distros can be a pain to install, other distros like Freespire, Linspire and Xandros are so easy to have software installed on. But what you hear is the same rant that software on Linux is difficult to manage.

The last untruth:

A good number of people I have spoken to seem to think that Linux, is that particular distro they are experimenting with. So when things do not work out, "Linux" is labeled as a non starter! I can confirm that I know Linux distros that will work out of the box o hardware that Microsoft's Windows has trouble even recognizing.

These Aren't Untruths (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196574)

There was another piece of FUD when it came to support. Ballmer used to say, "Who do you run to when you need support on Linux? Do you run to RedHat, Novell, the guys at OSDL, IBM? It was all FUD but achieved some success at dissuading folks from using Linux...The other untruth was one on installation. While software on some Linux distros can be a pain to install, other distros like Freespire, Linspire and Xandros are so easy to have software installed on. But what you hear is the same rant that software on Linux is difficult to manage...The last untruth:A good number of people I have spoken to seem to think that Linux, is that particular distro they are experimenting with. So when things do not work out, "Linux" is labeled as a non starter! I can confirm that I know Linux distros that will work out of the box o hardware that Microsoft's Windows has trouble even recognizing.

These aren't untruths. They're half-truths, which makes them far more potent than untruths.

Like it or not, these ARE weaknesses, at least in the eyes of many. The whole business of, "Well, this distro sucks but THAT distro is way better" is a very dodgy one for anybody making architectural decisions. Lots of companies stick with Solaris, HP and others because they just aren't interested in navigating that minefield.

Re:These Aren't Untruths (1)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197502)

Yep, these ARE untruths and have been for MANY years. I have had an easier time installing many versions of Linux on my hardware than installing Windows. Is Linux perfect? Nope. Is Windows perfect? Hell no...

And BTW using Linux isn't "navigating that minefield" and only a pro-Microsoft FUDSTER would suggest that it is.

Nice try.

Interesting viewpoint (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197976)

Yep, these ARE untruths and have been for MANY years. I have had an easier time installing many versions of Linux on my hardware than installing Windows. Is Linux perfect? Nope. Is Windows perfect? Hell no... And BTW using Linux isn't "navigating that minefield" and only a pro-Microsoft FUDSTER would suggest that it is.

You missed the point completely. I'm guessing you were more interested in labelling me pro-Microsoft than in thinking too hard about the points raised.

Since the original post contained its own rebuttals, it was clearly a series of half-truths.

And I never claimed that using Linux is "navigating a minefield". If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that. I'd spell out the difference between your words and mine, but then you wouldn't learn anything.

I stand by my assessment (1)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#17199106)

"Like it or not, these ARE weaknesses, at least in the eyes of many. The whole business of, "Well, this distro sucks but THAT distro is way better" is a very dodgy one for anybody making architectural decisions. Lots of companies stick with Solaris, HP and others because they just aren't interested in navigating that minefield."

Yep, what you said about "navigating that minefield" is pretty obviously intended to imply the use of Linux. On the off chance that I was wrong about you being a pro-Microsoft fuddster I went back and read some of your previous posts. I stand by my assessment.

Sigh... (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17199194)

You claimed I said that using Linux is navigating a minefield. My statement involves making architectural choices between competing distros with strengths and weaknesses. Do I have to explain why these statements are different? Do I have to explain as to a child?

And if you've read my past postings and somehow come to the conclusion that I'm pro-Microsoft, I'll just assume you used the same deductive reasoning that led you to misunderstand me this time.

Re:I stand by my assessment (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17199350)

I think, in fact, he said choosing a distro of Linux is a minefield, and most companies would rather stick where they are with minimal risk than pick a distro and run the risk of getting it wrong.

Reading comprehension score: 0/100

Microsoft and Patents (4, Informative)

mgpeter (132079) | more than 7 years ago | (#17195932)

'Would you sue your own customers? I wouldn't and I don't believe Microsoft will ever do it,"...

I think he is giving Microsoft too much credit, like any other large corporation that is facing struggling sales (cough,RIAA,cough), Microsoft has proven they will do *anything* they can to get a sale (including threatening their own customers).

For those paying attention, the clues are all around that Microsoft has in fact already played their patent card with some companies. Anyone thinking of deploying a large (1000+) installation using Samba instead of a Windows server will probably get a call/letter from a MS lawyer (once they get wind of it) stating that if you proceed you will be in violation of several Microsoft patents - even though they won't say what patents are involved!

Those of you who are not quite paying attention, just check out the interview with Stallman, Allison and Waugh at http://questionsplease.org/ [questionsplease.org] .

Re:Microsoft and Patents (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196524)

like any other large corporation that is facing struggling sales

In what alternate reality is Microsoft struggling for sales? It sure as heck doesn't look like this reality: MSFT: Key Statistics [yahoo.com]

Re:Microsoft and Patents (2, Insightful)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196764)

Something of Microsoft's isn't selling [yahoo.com] ...

Re:Microsoft and Patents (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196910)

In what alternate reality is Microsoft struggling for sales? It sure as heck doesn't look like this reality: MSFT: Key Statistics

In that reality of everday commerce where investors insist on increasing growth. From the linky, both revenue and earnings are a bit over 10%. Sounds fine, right? Newspapers consistently do about the same (going back as far as you want), but their investors are screaming for cost-cutting, and the general public thinks they're all in the toilet and about to go out of business.

If Microsoft, or any other company, doesn't keep pushing up the numbers of what they bring in, investors slowly move away. The more investors that leave, the more the stock goes down. The more the stock goes down, the number of investors leaving increases.

Re:Microsoft and Patents (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198174)

From the linky, both revenue and earnings are a bit over 10%. Sounds fine, right? Newspapers consistently do about the same (going back as far as you want), but their investors are screaming for cost-cutting, and the general public thinks they're all in the toilet and about to go out of business.

That is an 11% growth in Microsoft earnings over the last quarter.

""Contrary to popular belief, newspapers aren't dying. Newspapers are making tons of money." Extra: Newspapers Aren't Dead [time.com] The magazine has a graphic: The operating profit margin for newspapers is 19% and debt is modest. Microsoft is debt-free and its operating margin is 39%.

Re:Microsoft and Patents (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198924)

Earnings is nothing. How is their PE ratio?

Re:Microsoft and Patents (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216766)

PE ratio is nothing. What's the ratio of their share price and forward earnings divided by the expected growth rate compared to other leading companies in their sector compared to the market as a whole? Is the company secular or cyclical? If cyclical, is the economy trending in their favor (think interest rates)? So on and so far, yah de da. I'm just yanking your chain :)

Re:Microsoft and Patents (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196972)

SAMBA isn't a good example. Not only is it reverse-engineered, but Microsoft's file and printer sharing technology is licensed from IBM (who holds the approriate patents).

Now, if on the other hand you develop a new camera and use flash memory formatted with FAT and using filenames longer than 8 characters with a 3 character extension, well then you'd have to be loony because they'll be all over you for crazy stuff like that.

I would sue my own customers - if there was cause (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197486)

Why do slashdotters so often act like "suing your own custormers" is an atrosity? It isn't, in fact it's common.

I'm a bit surprised at the reaction because, I would think that there are high-level consultants on /. What do you do if a client does not pay on time, or otherwise breaks the contract? Sure you try to work things out, but sometimes you can't.

Don't know what they're doing? (3, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196024)

That's OK for Oracle. The people making the purchasing decisions don't know what they're doing either.

Well, duh. (1)

lottameez (816335) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196220)

Do you think the Red Hat EVP of Sales is really going to say something like "HOLY CRAP! We're screwed!!!!" ? Of course not, they're going to come out swinging - that's all they can do.

Re:Well, duh. (1)

segfault_0 (181690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197324)

Actually i think all the points he made in respect to Oracle's Linux were valid and in the long term will turn out to be true. There is a reason that RedHat is still a big name in Linux after all these years - they put alot of work and money into adding value to the open source communities base software offerings in the form of well patched and configured set of releases and a structured release/development cycle. This in concert with their support package makes them a tough act to beat overall for businesses. Oracle saying that they are going to base all their work on RedHats stuff implicitly implies that they will be a step behind them all the time and that their hands will often be tied in making their own modifications to the packages. Oracle saying that they are going to put the whole development/support infrastructure in place that RedHat offers, overnight no less, is ridiculous.

On the other point, if Microsoft really felt they had a locked up case of IP infringement on Linux - they would have pulled the trigger long ago - your everyday average helping of FUD.

Overall I think the EVP's response to both points was perfect.

redhat fork can be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17196322)

never enough choice out there.

What else is he going to say (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196342)

"Ok, well, it was a nice run, but now we're screwed and we'll be lucky if we're still in business in 2010"? I mean, they will be lucky if they remain in business, and things are bleak for linux (except for suse, natch) but it's his job to present a brave face and reassuring words for stockholders, isn't it?

Re:What else is he going to say (1)

BokLM (550487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205804)

I doubt Red Hat will die in the near futur. I see no reason why they wouldn't be in business in 2010.

it's his job to present a brave face and reassuring words for stockholders, isn't it?

And it's Steve Ballmer's job to let people beleive Red Hat will be out of business by 2010. And I see no reason to trust Steve Ballmer more than him. And it's not like it's the first time Steve Ballmer is spreading FUD ...

Whatever will happens, we'll see, but I see no reason to be afraid of what will happen to Red Hat now.

Protecting the Family Jewels (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196586)

I thought that the end was near for Linux in the U.S. until a couple of days ago.

Oracle and maybe microsoft/suse in particular gives their high-value customers something to spend their money on with their distro. Microsoft and Oracle can't pull the litigation trigger right now because it threatens an extremely valuable/profitable Service segment. For right now, it's about keeping their customers happy and keeping those service contracts going.

Some UNlikely litigation targets:
filesystem patents
Mono
Identity management/authentication
Server anything

Some likely targets:
media playback
openoffice.org
The "killer" Linux desktop application that hasn't taken off yet. There are so many good ones it's only a matter of time.

Beyond that, it seems inevitable to me that someone will create the usual Linux support environment for running oracle software on another distro. How many recompiled redhat support contract versions of their distro are out there now?

So will this end the (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196702)

Novell bashing and let people here know that openSUSE 10.2 is out? Normaly each and every major distribution that has a new version out and not let it pending since the 7th when it came out.
Or will people think that RedHat is now also in the power of Microsoft and does not understand how business work?

Re:So will this end the (1)

Retief-CDT (409607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203842)

Probably not. The Editors of /. have decided SUSE is not a Linux OS anymore.

Red Hat (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17196974)

I must say, after having read TFA and other comments by Red Hat officials about the recent developments in the software world, I am full of respect for them. The analysis of the drawbacks of 'Unbreakable Linux' are well stated, and the dismissal of the MS-Novell deal, as well as an unshaking resolve to not enter into a similar deal, is commendable. I don't currently use any Red Hat products, but when/if I have an influence on Linux purchasing procedures (where I currently am, or elsewhere), I will certainly lean in their direction.

(If you want, look at my previous posts on Slashdot to see that I have no general pro- or anti- Red Hat bias.)

Microsoft wouldn't sue? (1)

soxos (614545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197174)

'Would you sue your own customers? I wouldn't and I don't believe Microsoft will ever do it,"...
Ernie Ball [com.com] might have something else to say about that.

Holy @$%$ (1)

duffer_01 (184844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197448)

Rather than always "dimissing the impact", just once I would like to hear a report where a CEO/President/VP actually comments with what they are really thinking.... "Holy @$%$, they did what????"

paranoid /.'s (2, Interesting)

Deinesh (770292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17197534)

I don't know why everybody is getting so freaked out,

Now Enterprise Linux is cheaper -> GOOD, Linux market gets bigger. IMO RHEL costs too damn much anyway.
Unbreakable Linux becomes the standard linux -> GOOD, I am sick of trying to figure out how creative vendor X is in trying to hide a file from me.

On the other hand, if Red Hat goes under, Linux will loose a huge contributer, but I don't think it will be fatal.

I also doubt that Oracle would be stupid enough to limit support for their DB to Unbreakable linux. Their DB is their bread and butter, if they drop support for any OS that they curently support (say RHEL), there will be customer attrition. Why would they want to do loose Database customers for the sake of a product (Unbreakable Linux) that they will not make as much money on?

Unbreakable linux is a move against Microsoft. MS offers a stable, well integrated platform for their enterprise customers (SQL Server 2005 + Server 2003), Oracle wants to offer something comparable.

Re:paranoid /.'s (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17206768)

I also doubt that Oracle would be stupid enough to limit support for their DB to Unbreakable linux. Their DB is their bread and butter, if they drop support for any OS that they curently support (say RHEL), there will be customer attrition. Why would they want to do loose Database customers for the sake of a product (Unbreakable Linux) that they will not make as much money on?

For Oracle customers, the only point of interest is Oracle. It doesn't matter if it's running on Linux, Solaris, Windows or a room full of monkeys banging rocks together - as long as the millions of dollars they have sunk into their environment, plus the millions of dollars in generates in revenue, that relies on Oracle to continue running, does so.

There are very, very few Oracle customers who are in any position to move away from Oracle. If Oracle says their DB will only be Supported on "Oracle Linux", then "Oracle Linux" is what's going on the DB servers.

Re:paranoid /.'s (1)

Deinesh (770292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17211436)

There are very, very few Oracle customers who are in any position to move away from Oracle.
Those few customers will consider other options. A fraction of those will migrate - why would Oracle want to loose any Database customers for a product that they don't even own - it doesn't make sense to me.

There is also the infrastructure issue. Most corporations are standardized (or trying to standardize) on a single OS wether it be Windows, Solaris, SUSE linux or RHEL. A PHB might decide that it is cheaper to migrate an app from Oracle to SQL Server or Sybase than to make extensive changes to the corp's infrastructure.

VMWare (1)

jaweekes (938376) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198022)

I have just been to a VMWare user conference, and they said that they are creating virtual machines without OS's to run programs directly; Oracle was the main example of this. This means that Oracle will have to provide it's own drivers and such to talk directly to VMWare. Maybe this is what they are plaining on doing...

Y-ou Fail It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17198352)

contact to see if sling, return it to as it is licensed cAs3 you want to

Is This Possible now? (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198362)

It occurs to me that since the ORacle Announcement and the Microsoft-Novell deal, then if Microsoft goes after RedHat with patent suits then it will also have to sue Oracle at the same time as it is essentially the same code.
Now Oracle have far far bigger pockets than RedHat and could probably resist the Microsfot onslaught until a just verdict was reached in court whereas on its own RH would probably go under due to litigation costs.

Or, is there some twist in the US Legal System that would allow M$ to sue RH and not Oracle even though it was just as liable to be in breach of the unnamed patents?

Re:Is This Possible now? (1)

fritsd (924429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17200762)

Or, is there some twist in the US Legal System that would allow M$ to sue RH and not Oracle even though it was just as liable to be in breach of the unnamed patents?
Yes, AFAIK if you have a patent, you are granted a full monopoly, so you can choose who to sue and how much money you want (no limits whatsoever) or even refuse a license at any price to some of the infringers, while giving others a free license.

Austria-Hungary vs. Serbia (1)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202540)

Yes, it is possible. However, there's nothing to stop Oracle, IBM & others from filing amicus curiae, "friend of the court" briefs, and/or suing MS for patent infringement. If MS decides to sue RH for patent infringement, it may end in Global Thermonuclear Patent War. Don't think so? Austria-Hungary was sure Britain and France would not intervene if A-H invaded Serbia. The outcome? World War I, after which Austria-Hungary was dead, while Serbia became Yugoslavia. War is almost always a crap-shoot & never more so than when there's a lot of secret treaties. I could be wrong, but would guess that almost all agreements between companies have non-public clauses.

Parallels? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17198512)

A buddy of mine just bought his new Mac whatever laptop. He's running parallels so that he can use the Windows Only VPN client. Apparently the fine folks that make Parallels have a new version out such that you can run windows applications that appear to be running like a regular Apple app (i.e. you minimize the virtualization window). As virtualization becomes more and more powerful, I don't think worrying about which OS you're running will be that much of an issue. I can't speak for what most DBAs see in their daily life but as an application developer the only DB issues I see are related to disk hit. It really wouldn't make any appreciable difference if Unbreakable Linux was running in a miniature virtual machine while storing the information on a SAN.

Time for RH to make a deal with IBM to hype DB2! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17198632)

If your needs are such that you need a commercial database that runs under LINUX, consider DB2 from IBM. It is cheaper. IBM tends to under publicize its products. IBM is not so intrusive. RH should make a deal with IBM to hype DB2 as an Oracle alternative.

Oracle Support - pah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17199304)

How are Oracle going to offer decent support for Linux when they have seemingly spent the last five years ensuring that their database support is a pile of crap!

Who's your daddy? Ellison responds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17200100)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>