Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Dismisses Threat Posed by Oracle and MS

Posted by Hemos on from the well-of-course-he-would-say-that dept.

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."

21 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yawn... by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 2

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

    --
    sarcasm:
    -noun
    1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
  2. Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "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, 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
    1. Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. by BokLM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      wtf.n0x.org
    2. Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
      --
      My blog
    3. Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. by Azarael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop. by Petersko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Whaaaa??? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. Re:Yawn... by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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.

  5. Smokin' The Herb... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...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.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Smokin' The Herb... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  6. Re:Problem? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?
    --
    My blog
  7. Facts, sometimes do not matter by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  8. Re:Problem? by Ajehals · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Microsoft and Patents by mgpeter · · Score: 4, Informative

    '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/.

    1. Re:Microsoft and Patents by hanssprudel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something of Microsoft's isn't selling...

  10. Don't know what they're doing? by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  11. Probably not... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Problem? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My blog
  13. paranoid /.'s by Deinesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:Yawn... by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "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.