Red Hat Dismissing Microsoft, Oracle

Robert writes to tell us Red Hat's CEO Matthew Szulik is encouraging customers to take Microsoft up on their support voucher offer for Novell's rival Linux system in order to "get the issue over with." Dismissing the impact that the Microsoft-Novell deal has had on business, Szulik is just happy to see customers taking Microsoft's money. "Szulik also dismissed Oracle Corp's attempt to under-cut it on Linux support on similar grounds, insisting that customers were unlikely to be convinced by cost savings that are a small percentage of their overall software spend."

Comments

Oracle Support of Linux is a good thing

[rohar]

Having attended Oracle Openworld this year and being an Oracle DBA in a large AIX/HP/Solaris environment, I don't think the Oracle Linux support offering is negative for Red Hat or Linux in general. Oracle is attempting to get Linux buy-in from larger corporations that are traditional Unix shops with the idea that offering the same level of support for the OS as the DB on servers that are usually running databases exclusively is a reason to switch from traditional Unix.

I don't think that there will be many customers that are already running Linux and purchasing support from Red Hat switching to Oracle Linux support, but I think the Oracle support of Linux and their IP indemnification of Linux is overall good for Linux adoption in the enterprise.

Re:Oracle Support of Linux is a good thing

[DaveAtFraud]

The other rationale that came right from an Oracle guy presenting at the local LUG was "one throat to choke." He said that customers didn't like calling Oracle support only to be told their problem was a Linux issue and then calling Red Hat and be told it was an Oracle issue. To the extent that people install RHEL only to run a Linux server, customers will probably migrate to Oracle. Oracle Linux isn't positioned as a general purpose distro but as a platform for an Oracle database (hine: don't call Oracle if you have a Samba issue).

In a similar vein, the same person said that Oracle is pushing current Windows customers to migrate to Linux. It seems Oracle's Windows support spends more time dealing with Windows issues than Oracle issues. Oracle Linux isn't a way to go after Linux distros. Larry's ultimate target is Bill.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Oracle Support of Linux is a good thing

[growse]

I agree, because of past ventures such as Netware, Novell is more widely known to companies than Redhat. However, awareness of MS and Oracle blows them out of the water.

If I, as a company, have a yearly spend of £50 million with Oracle (quite feasable) I'm going to be more likely to seriously consider Redhat as a supplier if Oracle tells me that they're a good idea, because I have a relationship with and trust Oracle.

Re:Brilliant!

[zappepcs]

I don't know, he might have a point.

FTFS "Szulik is encouraging customers to take Microsoft up on their support voucher offer [CC] for Novell's rival Linux system in order to "get the issue over with.""

If people do say 'hey, I want support now please' it will end any question about whether RedHat has something to worry about. I'm leaning toward the thought that the results of asking MS for Linux support will turn up on viral news sites all over the place with hilarious results. Can you remember the Verizon Math? or any number of other customer support nightmares that got published on the Internet?

My distro...

[Bullfish]

Is bigger than your distro... Frankly, while I can understand why the people who run one distro want to show that they are better than the other distros... it is one of the things that holds linux back a bit. You get the diversity of development that comes from the different groups producing distros, but to the public who might want to try linux, it gets very confusing to sort between them if they are not technical. I mean you look at ubuntu's "linux for human beings" which implies that the other distros are not for them... And before anyone mentions that vista has six versions, they are all from MS, clearly enough delineated with a dot chart, and there are sales people there ready to steer you to the most expensive version. It would be at some level in linux's interest to have the distros look at some kind of mutual marketing strategy to help people sort out the differences between them so they can pick the one right for them, at least on the desktop side. The server people for the most part are learned enough to figure it out.

Oracle, pah!

[Macka]

Re-brand and sell Red Hat? Don't think so. Sell support for Redhat, yes. That's not the same as re-branding it.

The big problem with Oracle selling support for Redhat is this. If a customer discovers a bug in Redhat that requires a code fix and reports it to Oracle, who gets to fix it, Redhat or Oracle? "Oracle" I hear you say, because they have access to the source code.

That's all well and good, but what guarantees do you have as an Oracle customer that Oracle's fix is going to be included in Redhat's source tree? Answer: none! Redhat aren't beholden to you or Oracle, because you don't have a support contract with them.

So the next time you run up2date or upgrade to the next Redhat errata, what happens? Your application breaks again because your Oracle specific patches aren't in the Redhat code tree.

The only solution for Oracle is to run their own patch servers so that with every errata Redhat ships they can apply their own code fixes before allowing you (their customer) to update. What a headache for Oracle! Think of the overhead they have to swallow. The admin costs. The server environment costs. The developer costs. The QA costs - assuming they bother to QA the Redhat updates after they've changed them (cos Redhat won't).

And Oracle are supposed to do all this and run a profitable support service for less money than Redhat? Bollocks they can!

Enjoy your unified Oracle support while you can, because I don't see it lasting very long.