Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support

PCM2 writes "It's not Oracle Linux, but Larry Ellison has announced that Oracle will be providing full enterprise support for Linux. This means not just phone calls but also patches, security fixes, and backports, in addition to indemnification from lawsuits like SCO's. This puts Oracle in direct competition with its erstwhile partner, Red Hat, whose entire business is based on providing similar support for its Linux distro and related software."

Comments

first step towards buying red hat?

[carlivar]

Perhaps just a strategy to get RHAT stock low enough to buy them?

Re:first step towards buying red hat?

[dcavanaugh]

Let's see if Oracle REALLY undercuts Red Hat support prices. I have yet to see Oracle undercut ANYONE on the price of ANYTHING. They would be well advised to properly support their own products first. I've had my fair share of offshore disappointment with Oracle support -- not anxious to repeat the experience. Then again, I suppose anyone can serve patches. Hell, I run Centos at home. There is nothing going on with Oracle vs. Red Hat that Centos isn't doing already (on a smaller scale, of course).

Meanwhile, a competitive market might actually help Red Hat. Lower prices would increase Red Hat's volume, even if some of the sales went to Oracle. The trick is to figure out the optimum price that maximizes total revenue. I suspect that magic price is somewhere south of Red Hat's current pricing. Oracle might accidentally help Red Hat find a richer price point.

For many other reasons, you are correct. Buying Red Hat means Larry gets JBOSS, which he wanted to buy before. And Oracle becomes the top Linux company overnight. That won't happen if players like Red Hat are still on the playing field. Otherwise, "Unbreakable Linux" is simply the latest Red Hat knockoff. Besides, growth via acquisition is Larry's game. Very rarely does Oracle crank up a new line of business on their own.

The Linux OS

[RAMMS EIN]

``Oracle will be providing full enterprise support for Linux.''

That should have said "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and 4". They're not supporting every GNU/Linux distribution, nor are they supporting just the kernel.

Remember, there is no such thing as the Linux operating system. Linux is just the kernel, and the various distributions based on it are all different.

I understand....

[Creepy Crawler]

Why they would want their own distribution (either buy Rhat or make their own)..

But why not use established systems with guaranteed update mechanisms? Something like Debian with the stable branch comes to mind.

Extended warranty?

[Junta]

Ok, in summary, Oracle will support only RHEL3 and RHEL4 distributions (per TFA). They didn't mention CentOS and said they wouldn't be packing it themselves, so the implication it is only copies purchased from RH. Best I can figure is that Oracle would be offering the equivalent of an 'extended warranty', targetting those who took the shortest support contract possible from RedHat and paying oracle with the rest, meaning either their hoping their name will carry weight or they plan to undercut RedHat for long term contracts.

TFA says RedHat doesn't sell the 'OS', but that's bullocks. You cannot legally get RHEL without paying for it (some of the copyrighted artwork and name), hence the whole point of the existence of projects like CentOS. Their fundamental business is built on support, but it changes not the fact that they do not give away the distro they sell anymore.

Re:Extended warranty?

[RunzWithScissors]

The goal is to not pay Red Hat a dime. Think about it, how does CentOS work? Easy, Red Hat, being an open source company, releases the sourcecode for the entire Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution. Then CentOS takes the source code, removes all the copyrighted artwork and such, and BAM! CentOS. Oracle basically says they're going to do the same thing with their "Unbreakable Linux". So, you can get RHEL with out paying for it. Grab the source RPMs, remove the artwork, and rebuild binary RPMs.

Really, this is Crazy Larry being pissed off that Red Hat bought JBoss. He's going to stick it to Red Hat the only way he can, run his own Linux support business, at a loss, in order to grab marketshare from Red Hat. Once Red Hat is anemic enough, or belly up, and his own customer base is large enough, he'll jack up the rate to something that's profitable. In Economic terms, this is known as "dumping". Flooding the market with low cost goods in order to gain market share. Then when all the competitors go out of business, you have a monopoly. And we all know what happens when someone has a monopoly...

-Runz

It's about the value chain

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle's internal organization and practices lead to expensive services. They probably can't compete with Red Hat on price.

My guess is that Oracle isn't really targeting Red Hat, they're targeting IBM and eventually Microsoft. Larry E. isn't noted for humility and, if he takes out Red Hat, it's just a way station on the road to a greater goal.

Re:I'm confused...

[eln]

Ellison explained it more fully in his presentation. Basically, Oracle will provide Enterprise support for RedHat as well as its own version of Linux called Unbreakable Linux. Unbreakable Linux will essentially be a copy of RedHat. Every time RedHat comes out with a new release, Oracle will take the source code, remove all of the RedHat trademarks, and release it as Unbreakable Linux. Oracle will allow both RedHat and Unbreakable installs to get support from them, including bug fixes, patches, and other software.

All a RedHat client has to do to move to Oracle support for their RedHat install is to stop using RedHat's update servers and start using Oracle's. Oracle will provide patches, and will backport those patches to earlier revisions than RedHat does in order to keep enterprise-level clients from having to upgrade all of their systems too often.

So, as it stands now, Oracle will basically be offering a higher level of support than RedHat for the same exact software for a lot less money. RedHat is going to be forced to drastically reduce their prices just to compete.

I would think that over the longterm Oracle's Unbreakable Linux will fork off, especially if this ends up seriously damaging RedHat, but for now Unbreakable Linux is nothing more than a re-branded copy of RedHat.

RMS exonerated?

[CoughDropAddict]

RMS always argued that free software is pro-capitalist, because there is a free market for support. I think it's great that we're seeing this argument validated with real-life examples.

Yes, there are several vendors who support their own distro of Linux, but are there previous instances where a third party (Oracle) is competing with a vendor who itself does support (RedHat)?

Good news but for unexpected reasons.

[Lethyos]

RedHat is stagnant. I have to admit a degree of ignorance here, but as far as I can tell, they are not really doing anything to excite interest in their market. They offer support and their own distribution (apart from Fedora Core) at outrageously high prices. (Even Windows server solutions are cheaper than RedHat.) Sure they gobbled up JBoss, but I do not think there is as much market overlap as one might suspect.

I might even go so far as to say RedHat has done a fair amount of damage to Linux adoption: they create high costs and little value or innovation likely because they face no direct competition.

With Oracle entering the picture, RedHat will be compelled to move quickly—to at least do something. I am not even quite sure what that is, but one way or another, this is adds choice for the market and that is always good, whether it results in a better RedHat or no RedHat.

Re:Yes yes, this whole debate again...

[RAMMS EIN]

``Where do you draw the line?''

If you're talking about a specific distribution (which is often the case), use the name of the distribution. If you're talking about the kernel, say "the kernel" or "the Linux kernel", and if you're talking about GNU/Linux systems in general, say "GNU/Linux", to avoid ambiguity.

``Linux distribution is a well accepted term and the practice of shortening it to Linux is well accepted.''

I agree, and I accept that usage, but, in this case, Oracle is supporting a single distro, not Linux in general. Saying that they support Linux is, at best, unclear, and I would say false.

``Without the GNU toolset (or one like it), the kernel would be essentially useless.''

I suppose you mean to suggest that we shouldn't be saying "GNU/Linux". However, I've built and seen systems based on Linux that didn't include GNU software, as well as systems that included GNU software, but not Linux. I can tell you that much of the identity of GNU/Linux comes from the GNU part, not the Linux part. That's why I prefer to use the combined term.

``If a desktop system, at least X, and generally Gnome or KDE is needed, so do you have to say Gnome/X/GNU/Linux in that case? If it's a particular config of a web server do you have to say Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux?''

I am not about to declare that everyone _has_ to call it a certain way, but I do like people to be clear, precise, and truthful. Konqueror is part of KDE, not Linux. Firefox runs on top of GTK, not necessarily Linux or even X. glibc is part of the GNU system, and works with various kernels besides Linux. Drivers for Linux won't work with AIX, no matter how many GNU utilities, X servers, and GNOME's you install.

In cases where it's relevant, it may make a lot of sense to describe a system as Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux, although the various components probably matter to different people. As a webmaster, I probably care about Postresql and PHP, and perhaps Apache, but not about GNU and Linux. As the sysadmin, I probably care about all of them.

It turns out my information was outdated.

[Lethyos]

I have not checked the prices of comparable RedHat and Microsoft server offerings. It turns out that RedHat is still cheaper, but by a trivial amount. Compare the RedHat Store (see: Server Operating System Products) and Windows Server 2003 R2 Pricing. (Wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot support post annotation or editing?)

At any rate, Windows might still be a superior server platform thanks to the effectiveness of ActiveDirectory, fine-grained ACL, and so on. I am no Windows apologist (on the contrary, quite the advocate of open source solutions), but I fear Microsoft may be leaping far ahead of their competition in this space.

Re:So?

[ilmdba]

i've found oracle's support for their database and financials products to be great.

anytime i reported an issue with our several thousand dollar implimentation, they either already had a patch that fixed it, or had one shortly thereafter.

so i guess everyone can mod both of these 'my individual experience' posts down, and call it even?

Re:I'm confused...

[chill]

Oracle, unlike CentOS, has money. They hire the fleeing Red Hat people and eventually buy the shell of what was Red Hat for a song. Larry, being partial to bowlers, adopts a new logo.

Re:Yay.

[WindBourne]

Wrong. Oracle runs faster on Linux than Windows. And it will get faster still. The problem is that as soon as Oracle tweaks to the MS kernel, MS intrduces tweaks designed to slow Oracle. This approach is how they treat all of their competitors. The nice thing is that if Oracle sticks this out and works with redhat, ibm, sgi, etc, more software companies will port to Linux due to neutrality.

Ex-Oracle OSS strategy guy's view

[savio13]

Very interesting blog by Dave Dargo, who, according to Matt Assay, used to lead Oracle's open source strategy, about the Oracle Linux announcement.

An interesting point from Dave:

I'm mostly curious as to why Oracle's first real support network is for someone else's product. Where's the Oracle Database Network and Applications Network and PeopleSoft Network and Siebel Network? Where are the support infrastructure networks for Oracle's own products to automatically distribute fixes, patches and alerts?

And this quote made me laugh:

It's amazing that they can provide all that for a mere $399 for a competitor's products, but not for their own $200,000 product.

RH Response

[talksinmaths]

Unfakeable Linux