Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle To Finish Linux Makeover This Year

Posted by simoniker on from the so-pretty dept.

An anonymous reader writes "According to a CNET News article: 'Oracle will finish switching its 9,000-person in-house programming staff to Linux by the end of 2004, the database powerhouse said Wednesday. In October, the company finished the Linux transition for the 5,000 programmers of its Oracle Applications software. Now the transformation has begun for those who work on the database product, said Wim Coekaerts, director of Linux engineering, in an interview at the CeBit trade show in New York.'"

51 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by funkytwig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This prompts me to ask the above question whitch I have been asking in several other places.

    Was wondering what the potential was for using Linux on fairly standard PC hardware to run an Oracle server. Is anyone actually using one in a
    production set up and if so what number of users/size of database/applications are they using.

    What I was thinking was something like fairly standard main board (i.e. gigabyte/Abit) Inter/AMD 2000 (possibly dual) with 1-2GB memory (or even
    less) and Serial-ATA (or possibly IDE RAID) disk.

    I guess my question is can oracle be run on a sub 1000 system for real world applications in SME?

    your general experiences/feeling (based on real world rather than theory) would be interesting.

    1. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by Super_Z · · Score: 5, Informative

      Databases are usually pretty disk intensive, so I would probably go for SCSI disks. Anyway - when the hardware costs are dwarfed by the Oracle licence cost - why skimp on the hardware?

    2. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure, depending on the load the server is
      going to get.

      At my office there's a Pentium 3 with 512 MB
      of RAM running just fine with Oracle 9i on Redhat 8 for a small intranet site (about 60 users).

    3. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are spending the kind of money necessary to have a licensed copy of Oracle the cost of the hardware involved is not significant. You could run Oracle on low-end hardware but why? If you are going for a budget solution then use Postgre or MySQL.

      Putting Oracle on a low-end box is like putting a $3000 stereo system in a Yugo.

    4. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Putting Oracle on a low-end box is like putting a $3000 stereo system in a Yugo.

      But about the only way you'll get someone to steal your Yugo for you. Might be worth it.

      This guy walks into a NAPA store and up to the parts counter where he asks, "Excuse me, can you give me a rear view mirror for my Yugo?"

      The gentleman behind the counter gets a thoughful look, scrathes his a head for a moment, and replies," Yeah, sure. Why not? It sounds like a fair trade to me."

      I'm not at all sure that the same would apply to a PC with Oracle on it though. A thousand dollar PC is actually good for something and you might miss it.

      I think what Oracle is good for is still an open question, but at least many find it useful. Kinda like a brick is useful when you need to swat a fly. It's a crude instrument, but it gets the job done.

      But I advise not using it on Windows.

      KFG

    5. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by toledo · · Score: 5, Informative

      We have a sitewide license for Oracle, so the license cost wasn't an issue for the department, but hardware costs were.

      We set up an unused desktop PC with a copy of Red Hat Advanced Server (P3 730Mhz, 512 Mb RAM) and it is running several databases in Oracle which compare favourably with our aging Sun boxes. What's more, because IDE drives are so cheap we got several huge disks and got reliability and speed extremely cheaply.

      Well worth the try if the license cost is not a issue.

    6. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could run Oracle on low-end hardware but why?

      Because Oracle is fast. Very, very fast. Not only is it fast, but it has serious database features. Its like putting a $30,000 engine in a Yugo.

      Also, Oracle allows you use their database for development and prototyping for free. You don't need to pay for a license, or for high-end hardware to host the system, until you are ready to deploy.

    7. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by golgotha007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...running just fine with Oracle 9i on Redhat 8 for a small intranet site (about 60 users)

      wow! do you also drive to the corner store in a space shuttle?

    8. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by pyite · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oracle is not fast. Not not fast. Speed isn't Oracle's game. Data integrity is. The point is that you sacrifice speed for things like real atomicity.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    9. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by snero3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, Oracle allows you use their database for development and prototyping for free

      That is not true. Well it made be true for you and your company, depending on what deal you guys cut, but not for everyone. I just spoke to oracle sales today about getting a license for our new dev environment and they said that we would have to pay for the same license that production runs. IE to run our dev environment on a dual CPU dell 4600 with the same DB features of the enterprise edition running in production we would have to buy the same license at the same price as the production license costs even though the dell has no where near the IO of the production machine. Hell if you want to use oracle data guard (TM) as a redunancy solution you have to buy an extra license for the backup machine even thought IT IS NOT ON!!!

      Remember oracle didn't become the second largest and richest software corp buy givening things away, they well get their $ out of you in the end

      Because Oracle is fast. Very, very fast. Not only is it fast, but it has serious database features. Its like putting a $30,000 engine in a Yugo

      Oracle may be fast in comparision to other enterprise databases (Db2, sqlserver etc....) but for some applications/organisations it is just far to over the top. For small websites/apps the default SGA in 10g is just far to high + 90% of the features you don't need and if you haven't install it properly (IE seperate files on seperate disks 7 minium) plus tuned the schema's plus redo log groups etc it will just crawl and cause massive IO. So for some small apps and small companies oracle + DBA is just far to expensive and far to over the top to get the speed out of it. They would be far better off going mysql, sql server etc...

      --
      It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
    10. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Raw devices are only negligably faster, and much more of a pain in the as to actually use. from Oracle documentation:

      Raw Devices
      Raw devices are disk partitions or logical volumes that have not been formatted
      with a file system. When you use raw devices for database file storage, Oracle
      writes data directly to the partition or volume, bypassing the operating system file
      system layer. For this reason, you can sometimes achieve performance gains by
      using raw devices. However, because raw devices can be difficult to create and
      administer, and because the performance gains over modern file systems are
      minimal, Oracle recommends that you choose ASM or file system storage in
      preference to raw devices.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    11. Re:Anyone using Linux/Oracle on standard PC by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Code your Oracle application well and you will be able to successfully exploit multiple datacenter grade servers with it. Oracle installations that exploit more than 100 cpu's for a single database are not that uncommon.

      Scaling of clustered Oracle is linear.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. How many programmers now? by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Microsoft sometimes claims that it has more full-time programmers working on Microsoft software than there are working on Linux software. If we add up IBM, Novell and Oracle, all of which have moved thousands of programmers to Linux, do we have Microsoft beat yet?

    1. Re:How many programmers now? by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft sometimes claims that it has more full-time programmers working on Microsoft software than there are working on Linux software.

      How do they know?

    2. Re:How many programmers now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      they have hidden cameras in your house looking over your shoulder as you're typing code so they can steal it. (it's a lot faster than having to wait until you submit it). if you find out too much, they hire someone to hold a gun sideways and point it at you. (that was a couple years ago though. i'm not sure they're still hiring people to hold guns sideways.)

    3. Re:How many programmers now? by Chainsaw+Messiah · · Score: 3, Funny
      i'm not sure they're still hiring people to hold guns sideways


      yes, they are. Even though the red-hot shells are ejecting into their faces, they explain it away as a hardware problem.

    4. Re:How many programmers now? by XryanX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some people already believe it, but I'm not sure that Gates & Co. have anything to do with it.

  3. Momentum by johnhennessy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it my imagination, or is there actually a reasonable migration to linux underway ?

    I would imagine that Oracle had a long ramp up for this.

    Putting it in perspective - the next chance M$ will have to try and pull accounts back is in two years time.

    What am I getting at:
    If Acme Co decides to start a Linux changeover today - it could be implemented before the next OS release by MS.

    My Point: The traffic is really only going to go one way for at least two years (assuming that the companies that switch now benefit from the change).

    --
    [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    1. Re:Momentum by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An interesting question is, how much revenue is MS going to lose as a result of much of heavyweights of the IT industry (Sun, Novell, IBM, Oracle) moving their many or all of their staff to Linux?

      Seriously - all those companies pay MS considerable sums each year in licencing fees. Now MS is effectively losing all of the key players in an important sector of US industry. That's got to hurt a bit, hasn't it?

    2. Re:Momentum by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oracle did not migrate from MS though. They previously used SUN workstations for development.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:Momentum by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It is my impression that Linux has momentum, but I think Sun is suffering more than Microsoft. To date, most of the major server migrations have been large companies switching from proprietary Unix systems to Linux.

      Small to medium size organisations are still installing a lot of Microsoft servers for in-house use. On the desktop, Linux has made virtually no impression in smaller organisations, and I think they feel more comfortable with desktops and servers based on common technology. It will be interesting to see if this changes over the next year or so.

    4. Re:Momentum by not_a_product_id · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd have thought it would be less to do any direct loss of revenue and more to do with smaller companies saying that if Linux is good enough for "Sun, Novell, IBM and Oracle" it should be good enough for us.

      --

      ---
      We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience

    5. Re:Momentum by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More significant, I think, is the impact on the jobs market. On one side, people looking to get jobs in these big, relatively secure (yes, I know, nowhere is secure) companies will ensure that they have Linux skills on their resume. And at the other end, people looking to move on from these companies will be trained up in Linus, ready to act as advocates in their new employers or startups, and pressuring hirers to use Linux because the skills are available.

      This is not a major event, but it is a good straw in the wind. At the moment everybody uses Microsoft because everybody uses Microsoft. When it is obvious that not everybody uses Microsoft, people will put more thought into what they should uses - giving Linux a level playing field.

      And yes, I have read that Oracle is dumping Solaris, not M$. But it is not the jumping off that matters, it is the jumping on. They are still giving more credibility, both as an employer and as a software manufacturer, to Linux).

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    6. Re:Momentum by PerryMason · · Score: 5, Informative

      A couple of things;

      a) Oracle moved from SUN to Linux and not from MS, so there is no loss there.

      b) MS still gets licensing fees from OEMs so anytime a big company buys a few thousand Intel based workstations, MS still get a stack of cash regardless of what OS you run on them.

      I honestly think the whole Intel/MS licensing thing is the biggest thing holding back Linux from gaining acceptance in the small to mid size firm (at least in the desktop market). There just isn't any financial incentive to not run MS operating systems when you get it free with every system you buy and financial reasons are the only ones that are going to persuade businesses to change.

      Admittedly Linux will continue to gain market share in areas such as file and print serving where Samba is both cheaper than a Windows Server license and also performs better but MS got where it is today by having its desktop as the de-facto choice. Every chimp (manager) used it on the desktop so assumed that it was the way to go for servers.

      --
      "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
    7. Re:Momentum by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Small to medium size organisations are still installing a lot of Microsoft servers for in-house use. On the desktop, Linux has made virtually no impression in smaller organisations, and I think they feel more comfortable with desktops and servers based on common technology.

      While it's true that Linux has not made many inroads on the small to medium organization desktops, it *HAS* made a huge change in the way small to medium size businesses handle server tasks. Yes, there are MANY small businesses that run dedicated Microsoft-based servers, but there may be just as many running Linux. In fact, I've seen more Linux than "Windows Server" in the small businesses I've worked with. The Internet and Internet-related protocols and standards are one reason this is even possible. Another driving force is cost savings.

      From my own experience and informal polls amongst friends, I would say that the popularity ordering for internal servers in small to medium size businesses is:
      1) Windows personal file sharing
      2) Dedicated Windows client running as a server
      tie
      2) Linux/Unix based dedicated server
      3) Dedicated "Windows Server" (such as Server 2003)

      For large businesses, Microsoft is king. There are a few corporate giants that run Lotus, but most are MS Office + Exchange based. It's not uncommon to see an entire rack dedicated to Exchange running on a cluster of Dells serving the email and calendar needs for a 3000 employee company. Overkill? Maybe. Overpriced? Probably.

      I wish Sun hadn't killed Cobalt... I knew a lot of very happy small businesses using RaQ and Qube servers for their internal servers. The big thing today seems to be Network Attached Storage, but such applicances generally lack email daemons.

    8. Re:Momentum by CommandNotFound · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is my impression that Linux has momentum, but I think Sun is suffering more than Microsoft. To date, most of the major server migrations have been large companies switching from proprietary Unix systems to Linux.

      However, it is effectively consolidating the Unix market into more or less a single front, which makes it a more formidable opponent to Windows in the long run.

      My anecdotal observation shows a slow-simmering movement to open source in general by the "proles" of the IT industry: bread-and-butter IT departments for hospitals, industrial firms, etc, who don't really care about software religion, but just want to save money over the long haul. I knew when a friend of mine told me that the CIO of his rural hospital system was looking to migrate to OpenOffice/StarOffice to save costs, a slow movement based on raw economics was underway, techie religions be damned.

      These types of migrations can stay under the radar for a long time before hitting a critical mass. Watching this unfold will keep things interesting, if nothing else.

  4. The tide turns by Whitecloud · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Oracle switches to Linux because its "less expensive and faster", but im sure a bonus factor is the pro-Linux news this will generate, which will be a body blow to Microsoft.

    Oracle isn't alone in embracing the open-source movement. Oracle are not alone, from the article: Dell is switching internal servers to Linux, while Novell is dropping Windows in favor of its own Linux desktop software for PCs.

    Also various governments around the world have rejected Windows for Linux lately, the tide is turning.

    --

    Do you need a website upgrade?

  5. Switching from Solaris, not Windows by buro9 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The headline doesn't make it clear, whilst it is a good thing that migrations to Linux happen from all other OS's, it should be highlighted before the anti-MS crowd jump in too fast:

    This is a move FROM Sun Solaris TO Linux.

    Oracle never used Windows for development because of portability issues to other OS's ;)

    1. Re:Switching from Solaris, not Windows by Whitecloud · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You are correct, but I think the public perception of Linux as "okay to use compared to microsoft" is very important. So any pro Linux publicity is going to damage Microsofts income base.

      It will be interesting to see what happens from Redmond HQ...if you cant beat em, join em?

      --

      Do you need a website upgrade?

  6. Get a copy of Oracle and try it out for yourself by drizst+'n+drat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oracle on Linux isn't a bad product. You can get the latest release; Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for Linux x86 or Linux Itanium from their Oracle Technology Network website at http://otn.oracle.com/software/products/database/o racle10g/index.html for your own non-commercial use. I played with it for a while but went back to using MySQL only because performance seemed to be better than Oracle's on a Linux box. In all fairness though, the box was an old Dell Inspiron 7500!

  7. Totally off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    A few years ago I saw a completely pimped out Pinto. Perfect paint, perfect everything. And in the rear window a panoramic landscape painting that was stippled so the driver could see through it.

    As completely inexplicable as such things are, they do happen.

    1. Re:Totally off topic but... by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As completely inexplicable as such things are, they do happen.

      Not inexplicable at all. You noticed it, and remembered it. It made an impression. Exactly what was intended. ;)

      --
      What were the skies like when you were young?
  8. What else is there? by basingwerk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the natural thing to do. Oracle started out on VMS and Unix type systems, and departed later into Windows. Since they ported their install process to Java between 8.1.6 and 8.1.7, and with their moves into the Application Server arena, it is clear that they have platform transparency in mind. Coupled with the fact that Unix is the dominant server platform, and Linux is a decent form of free Unix, this is a good move.

    --
    I stole this .sig
  9. That's great news by johannesg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now can we please have a version of Oracle for Linux that just installs out of the box, so to speak? So far every version I have tried either fails to install completely, or installs only on highly specific versions of Linux (like Red Hat 7.1), or requires arcane knowledge of the installation process to complete.

    I have developed several large applications that involve an Oracle database as one of their components, but the idea of actually having to install Oracle anywhere sends shivers down my back (and not from joy). If this keeps up I can see future work centering around PostgreSQL, just to avoid the endless hassle associated with the installation.

    Really, I like Oracle a lot, but I wish they would fix the endless installation issues...

    1. Re:That's great news by 1001011010110101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Arcane knowledge?
      If you install it on the supported linux versions, the process is pretty well documented.
      Going for a non-supported config will be a bit of pain, but there's information around the net with help on how to do it. Considering the level of complexity of the software, I woudn't expect otherwise.
      BTW, its supported under RH ES, Suse SLES and United Linux. I've seen it installed under RH9 and some other platforms with some tweaking. Obviously, who would run a production database on unsupported OS escapes to me.

  10. Re:Get a copy of Oracle and try it out for yoursel by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oracle has so many cache levels and tuning options going on it's pretty easy to have it running slow. To be fair though, if basic MySQL does the job, you don't even need to look at something as complex (and complete) as Oracle. IMHO, a happy medium is either SAP DB / MySQL Max or Postgresql.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  11. Significance by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is perhaps both more and less significant that it first appears.

    For those that don't know, from version 8.0 Oracle is in fact two seperate components, VOS (virtual operating system) and Oracle itself. VOS completely abstracts everything from the actual OS; Oracle programmers have their own APIs for file I/O, memory management, networking, threading, scheduling, you name it. To port Oracle to a new platform, VOS is ported, then Oracle itself compiled against the new VOS libraries.

    Solaris was the primary platform, which meant that everyone developed on a Solaris box and then compiled against VOS on all platforms prior to release. This meant that inevitably useful new features went into Solaris first, but eventually they would have to be incorporated into VOS otherwise Oracle itself would fail to compile anywhere else.

    So, this means that everyone gets a Linux box on their desktop, but they are still developing against VOS, and so while Oracle is pushing Linux as its platform of choice, all its other builds such as Solaris and AIX will remain current.

    1. Re:Significance by rjw57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds identical to the NSPR (Netscape Portable Runtime) that Mozilla et al use to abstract away the underlying Operating System. Surely in this case new features exist immediately on all NSPR platforms.

      --
      Rich
    2. Re:Significance by LesDawson · · Score: 3, Funny
      This is perhaps both more and less significant that it first appears.
      A great way to begin any post.
  12. Not such a big deal by gsasha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Migrating development from Solaris to Linux is not that hard - they're both Unices, and in my experience, Solaris as a dev platform... to put it politely... not the best out there. For a long time there's been no decent C++ compiler, their IDE is so-so, and for compilation speeds, a Linux workstation is beating Solaris unless you are prepared to pay some serious $$$ for a large server. Now migrating development from Windows is another story - there's MS Visual suite of tools, which are generally very good (and requires a different mindset at that). Getting people of that camp to work on Linux would be much harder.

    1. Re:Not such a big deal by Decaff · · Score: 3, Informative

      Solaris as a dev platform... to put it politely... not the best out there. For a long time there's been no decent C++ compiler, their IDE is so-so, and for compilation speeds,

      I'm not sure I understand you here, but there seems to be a confusion between operating system and development tools. There is no such thing as a 'Solaris IDE', any more than there is a 'Linux IDE'. Sure, on most Linux distros you can choose to install GNU C++, but also you might not. The development system is 'GNU/Linux'. You can also set up 'GNU/Solaris' by downloading GNU C++ and all other GNU stuff for solaris from www.sunfreeware.com for years. You don't even need to compile - the software is packaged ready for Solaris.

  13. Oracle apps finally support Mozilla? by sphealey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this mean Oracle's web-based apps will finally be fully operational under Mozilla? It is incredibly frustrating to have to fire up Internet Explorer to manage some part of Oracle (9iAS management console for example).

    sPh

    1. Re:Oracle apps finally support Mozilla? by Nadir · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the Oracle Enterprise Manager which comes with iAS 10g says it supports Mozilla 1.4+

      --
      --
      The world is divided in two categories:
      those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
  14. Re:Get a copy of Oracle and try it out for yoursel by funkytwig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MySQL is bound to be faster than oracle because compared to oracle it douse very little. MySQL is a small lean RDBMS whitch douse the basic stuff fast. Oracle douse a lot more and as a result of this is not so fast. This is why MySQL is very popular for holding web content and Oracle for complex business aplications.

  15. Oracle developers are not working on Linux by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They will be working "on" Linux ( that is, they will be running it on their desktop ), but they will not be working "on" Linux ( writing code for the OS ). Oracle developers will be working on Oracle software.

  16. Good Oracle/Linux Website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I had some problems installing Oracle on Linux until I found following website which shows you how to do it step by step for database and RAC:
    http://www.puschitz.com/OracleOnLinux.shtml"

  17. May be now... by KrisCowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since Oracle itself is transforming to Linux, may be installing Oracle Server on a Linux box will become easy. It took me 3 days to figure out how to install and configure Oracle on my Linux box.

  18. What about the non-technical staff? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Switching the programming staff from Solaris to Linux is no big deal. I'd be much more interested to hear what Oracle is doing with the PHBs, secretaries, marketers and other non-technical staff. I bet they're still on Windows.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:What about the non-technical staff? by CommandNotFound · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Switching the programming staff from Solaris to Linux is no big deal. I'd be much more interested to hear what Oracle is doing with the PHBs, secretaries, marketers and other non-technical staff. I bet they're still on Windows.

      Which may be the best route. I recall when I did some time on a Mainframe in the early 90's how ludicrous it seemed to have *everyone* using the same system to do their work: from the managers, engineers, developers, and clerical workers. All of these people had totally different jobs, but they all were forced to use the same setup to get their work done. The PC/LAN revolution was still gaining speed, and I recall thinking how much more efficient this would be: the engineers could upgrade systems rapidly for their uses, while the clerical staff could use more modest equipment that was geared for their jobs, and everyone would be happy now that they didn't have to use the same black Model T.

      I felt this same derision when I was given a new box with Windows XP (I'm a developer). It seems like a return to those days where everyone is forced to use the same system. The file searching in XP is horrible for my uses, because it was altered to help newbies find their documents and digicam pics. The multitasking has degraded even more since Win2K, probably because it was optimized for home users who rarely run multiple heavy-lift applications. It feels like the mainframe days all over again: let's make the newbies and engineers all use the same system. What's old is new, I suppose.

  19. Postrgres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all they need to do is switch to Postgres. ^^

  20. Having been at Oracle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... for an interview for a higher-level position (I'm a scientist, not a coder or manager), I think I can comment a little on the ramifications.

    As pointed out, this is largely a shift from development under Solaris to development under Linux. In part, Linux is more of an open-book to work with, and they'd really like to see better consistency amongst UNIXes in their feature sets and APIs with regard to what Oracle uses. Going to Linux is a statement basically saying -- "we like the Linux environment and you'd do well to make yours like it..."

    That said, there are other ramifications: where some had Sun workstations, others were using mid-range PCs with Windows as sort of heavyweight graphical terminals to develop on centralized servers. There's a shift now towards having more people developing on Linux on the desktop.

    Basically, Linux has proven to be a far more comfortable and flexible development and general use platform for Oracle than the previous Sun + Microsoft setup before.

    The Windows developers will undoubtedly use Windows, and many people will have more than one computer on their desk, each with a different OS. Both Sun and MS are taking it on the chin in this case, but for MS it's probably more a PR/Marketing problem. For Sun, it's bound to be a revenue problem.

    FWIW - I currently work for a company where 48% of the desktops runs Windows and 48% Mac (4% Linux) -- and 90% of the application use is either web-based, Java, or X11 clients where the underlying OS isn't relevelent. The cost of the OS, maintenance, etc. is really the brunt of the cost of a desktop workstation. If the 10% of OS-native apps were not absolutely crucial (or they worked with Citrix/RDP), there would be little incentive to stick with the commercial OS offerings at all. As it stands, we already give preference to vendors that offer platform-neutral solutions and have ruled out many vendors that only offer Windows-server based solutions...

    I don't think any of this is particularly uncommon (at least in my industry). If you are a software vendor, you better hope that you don't get a competitor that offers a platform-neutral/multiplatform solution similar to yours -- if so, you're sunk.