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."

Comments

Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop.

[morgan_greywolf]

"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.

Re:Red Hat must not be an Oracle shop.

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Petersko]

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.

Whaaaa???

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:Problem?

[morgan_greywolf]

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?

Microsoft and Patents

[mgpeter]

'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/.

Probably not...

[LWATCDR]

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%.