Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Dismisses Threat Posed by Oracle and MS
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."
agreed, i lost interest in redhat when they released fedora.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Oracle's typical answer is that Oracle will only be supported by platforms blessed by Oracle. See this FAQ from Oracle, 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.
My blog
And...
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
My blog
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?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"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.
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
'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/.
That's OK for Oracle. The people making the purchasing decisions don't know what they're doing either.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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%.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
"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?
>> 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.)
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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.
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?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
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 $40,000 a processor to a company like Oracle, and that certainly was adding up."
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalCo
Novell bashing and let people here know that openSUSE 10.2 is out? Normaly each and every major distribution that has a new version out and not let it pending since the 7th when it came out.
Or will people think that RedHat is now also in the power of Microsoft and does not understand how business work?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I must say, after having read TFA and other comments by Red Hat officials about the recent developments in the software world, I am full of respect for them. The analysis of the drawbacks of 'Unbreakable Linux' are well stated, and the dismissal of the MS-Novell deal, as well as an unshaking resolve to not enter into a similar deal, is commendable. I don't currently use any Red Hat products, but when/if I have an influence on Linux purchasing procedures (where I currently am, or elsewhere), I will certainly lean in their direction.
(If you want, look at my previous posts on Slashdot to see that I have no general pro- or anti- Red Hat bias.)
Rather than always "dimissing the impact", just once I would like to hear a report where a CEO/President/VP actually comments with what they are really thinking.... "Holy @$%$, they did what????"
Adventure City Tours
Why do slashdotters so often act like "suing your own custormers" is an atrosity? It isn't, in fact it's common.
/. 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.
I'm a bit surprised at the reaction because, I would think that there are high-level consultants on
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.
Larry, that was a mistake.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
Yep, these ARE untruths and have been for MANY years. I have had an easier time installing many versions of Linux on my hardware than installing Windows. Is Linux perfect? Nope. Is Windows perfect? Hell no... And BTW using Linux isn't "navigating that minefield" and only a pro-Microsoft FUDSTER would suggest that it is.
You missed the point completely. I'm guessing you were more interested in labelling me pro-Microsoft than in thinking too hard about the points raised.
Since the original post contained its own rebuttals, it was clearly a series of half-truths.
And I never claimed that using Linux is "navigating a minefield". If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that. I'd spell out the difference between your words and mine, but then you wouldn't learn anything.
I have just been to a VMWare user conference, and they said that they are creating virtual machines without OS's to run programs directly; Oracle was the main example of this. This means that Oracle will have to provide it's own drivers and such to talk directly to VMWare. Maybe this is what they are plaining on doing...
It occurs to me that since the ORacle Announcement and the Microsoft-Novell deal, then if Microsoft goes after RedHat with patent suits then it will also have to sue Oracle at the same time as it is essentially the same code.
Now Oracle have far far bigger pockets than RedHat and could probably resist the Microsfot onslaught until a just verdict was reached in court whereas on its own RH would probably go under due to litigation costs.
Or, is there some twist in the US Legal System that would allow M$ to sue RH and not Oracle even though it was just as liable to be in breach of the unnamed patents?
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
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.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
"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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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.
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.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
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.
[/dryhumour]
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) or Greenplum (100x as fast as Oracle) instead...
Things don't always pan out for the faltering Emperor.
you had me at #!
"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.
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 ...
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.