Slashdot Mirror
IBM Refuses To Certify Oracle Linux
Andrew writes "IBM has thrown a spanner in the Oracle Linux works by refusing to certify that IBM's software portfolio will run and be supported on Oracle Unbreakable Linux. If IBM applications turn out to be incompatible with Oracle Linux, then it will be up to Oracle to resolve any issues. This conservative stance of IBM's is unlikely to help Oracle sell Linux subscriptions to businesses that use any of IBM's large software portfolio."
Now that Oracle has added "Unbreakable" in front of the word "Linux"... Linux is finally going to become insecure :(
Note to Linux developers: remember to add all your SVN commits as cron jobs, and forward date them all 2 years, or 3 years if they're critical security patches.
They don't certify CentOS works either, but I can tell you for sure that Tivoli Storage Manager Extended edition works just fine on CentOS 4.4
If Oracle Linux is from the same mold as CentOS then it is a fear factor rather than anything serious. Personally if I where Oracle I would hire as many of the CentOS developers as possible and get them to do a spin of CentOS as Oracle Linux.
IMNSHO, db2 pisses on Oracle from a great height.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Looks to me like IBM is just looking after their own bottom line and protecting their own business by doing this. This is definitely not in the open and giving spirit of OSS and Linux.
IBM should rethink this decision if they want to hold onto the goodwill of the community.
I'm fairly sure that if someone offers enough money, they could have that assurance on Oracle, Ubuntu, or anyone else's Linux too.
A bit of an aside but I was told that Sun won't support Oracle Apps servers with their Identity management s/w Access Manager.
Is this a case of ganging up on Oracle by it's allegedly strategic partners.
This is hardly unusual. Companies spend a lot of money to certify software distros, and put their own maintenance dollars on the line when they certify them.
A third party saying "use our stuff--it's just the same as theirs" isn't necessarily credible. Maybe they're a clone, or maybe they're a clone today and might not be tomorrow. Or maybe they'd only clone part of the distro, leaving out critical parts. Or maybe they'll add custom stuff to the distro. IBM isn't under any obligation to believe Oracle's marketing materials and automatically certify based on taking Oracle's word that "it's the same and always will be."
There are DOZENS of RHEL clones out there (CentOS is the most popular, but hardly the only one). I don't think IBM considers any of them "certified."
Actual quote from TFA: "We are going to wait and see if there is traction in the marketplace," McMahon said. "If clients want it (Oracle), then we will support it."
This is a non-issue, and someone's using the "IBM vs. Oracle!" angle to generate traffic and controversy by stirring people up. Looks like they succeeded.
I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it. I doubt whether a huge amount of older software is certified to run on Windows 2003 either, but you can bet your life that many organisations are running that software on Windows 2003. Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic. I've done this many times, including an older piece of, now totally unsupported, software written for NT 4 in C to communicate with a mainframe that needed to run on 2003.
If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care.
In terms of backwards compatibility, and getting the software you want to work, Windows is still way ahead of Linux, and this whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally) by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more widely used.
You're confusing Linux the kernel with Linux the distribution. Each distribution contains the standard Linux kernel with a bunch of other stuff. So each distribution can be considered a different operating system as far as support is concerned.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Linux the kernel isn't much use without a distribution around it. The OP is right, Linux distributions are falling into the same trap as their proprietary brethren before them. Sometimes too much choice is a bad thing. At some point vendors have to draw a line in the sand and say this is it, we aren't supporting 100's of Linux distributions, we are supporting N Linux distributions.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
At any one time. With Windows there's only one current version of Windows. Right now its Vista. Before it was XP. Before that Win2k/98. Now with Linux at any one time there are literally hundreds of distros available. This is why Linux certification is necessary. If you want Linux certification to go away then somehow convince the community to stop spreading itself thin and concentrate on a few major distros.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Tada! DB2, IBM's database product, certified for Windows.
If you can read you will also note that they list the versions of 2003 that are certified.
So your entire argument is null and void. Specific windows distro/version's get certified or not to work with software by the companies supporting said software. You will not that windows XP for instance is NOT certified to work with DB2.
Doesn't mean you cannot run DB2 on Windows XP (or other versions) just that if you do, you are on your own. Exactly the same as with linux distro's or even IBM's un-certified AIX versions.
Certification is nothing more the saying, we tested our product with that product and if there are problems we will help you (for an ungodly amount of money) and if you choose to run our product on another product we won't help you, unless you pay an even large sum of money.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
... IBM telling Oracle to go to hell. They are my hero.
'If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care'
I think they are correct and should never certify Larry Ellisons stolen Linux code. Personally speaking I don't want to do business with a self confessed software thief.
"We can just take Red Hat's intellectual property and make it ours, they just don't have it."
was: I Hate Linux Distro Certification
(Score:4, who modded this up Insightful !!)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Running a closed-source app on an otherwise open source platform has problems to start. IBM's service organization status means that the liability for apps running successfully is largely on them. DB2 isn't really competitive with Oracle, but IBM also needs any number of Oracle's famous acquisitions to run on their infrastructure. The lightweight, one-toe-in-the-water support that Oracle has for Linux (despite the PR otherwise) doesn't make for a successful relationship. It's up to Oracle to figure this one out if they really really want to play in the burgeoning FOSS marketplace. This is a good thing: I never used to believe IBM but their efforts towards FOSS have been fairly stellar, and for the right reasons, IMHO.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Correct. I think there is a misconception about how much time and money it takes to certify a product on an OS. If you do that process for every single variation of Linux in combination with the last 3 or 4 revisions of your Product X. Then multiply that times possibly 40 or 50 products. And then there is the distribution costs of new CDs, etc. (not everyone downloads from the web). Why should a vendor like IBM spend the money chasing down small bugs in a obscure Linux distro when spending the money either improving the overall product or fixing bugs with a major distro would bring more business value. It's wiser to spend the money adressing the "fat" part of the market rather than making 1 or 2 customers happy even if they are huge customers, they are still small in relation to the total market. Now of course if someone wants to pay for the service instead of insisting it is covered by maintenance contracts then it should be considered. But, there are not many times when someone will pay the mega-dollars to get support for a non-standard OS and/or pay for fixes.
I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it.
For most IT dept.-written apps that rely on super-common well-known library functions, no, the distribution doesn't make much of a difference. But once you start doing lower-level stuff (like the sort of stuff every software application IBM sells does), things start to not work right.
This is a big problem with Linux, and no amount of wishful thinking will make the problem go away. Apps not working on all distributions is exactly the sort of problem that the Linux Standards Base (went nowhere) and United Linux (supported by Caldera/SCO) were supposed to prevent.
Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic.
Maybe some IT shop that doesn't care about their software actually working can do that, but actual software companies that make their living selling software MUST perform testing.
Yes, there are many organizations that do that, but those are either small and/or low-quality IT shops and/or non-critical apps.
I have several healthcare industry customers that are running OS software that is coming up on three years of ageing out of OS vendor support because their app vendor STILL hasn't certified a more recent O/S version. For them, and most customers, the app vendor support is far more important than OS vendor support, because they know that most day-to-day bugs are in their apps, not their OS. Personally, I know that I crash Mozilla (and other apps) a heck of a lot more than I have ever crashed Windows.
If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care.
Those customers will care very much when they try and call IBM to receive assistance under their support contract for their expensive and complex application and IBM says "Sorry Mr. Customer, you are running in an extremely unsupported and untested environment." Usually this will be accompanied by some limited best-effort support to make sure that it is not an obvious bug in the product.
Now if enough customers ask for it (and are willing to pay), I am sure that IBM will be more than happy to certify their apps on Oracle Linux. Yes, Oracle is a competitor, but so is M$, and plenty of IBM software runs on Windows. But IBM is not going to go out and certify Oracle Linux just because Oracle is whining about it. I am equally sure that if IBM rolled out their own distro tomorrow, Oracle would not be falling over themselves to certify their apps for it either.
This whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally) by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more widely used.
The fact of the matter is that there ARE differences between distributions, and those differences have been known to break a lot of applications. Because of this, there is no way for a software vendor to get around distribution certification. If you certified your mega-dollar application to run on any Linux distro, what do you do the first time some clown calls up with some home-grown hybrid of five different distros and wonders why it doesn't work?
Software companies are in the business of making money, not "helping Linux or open source software get more widely used." If Linux distro writers want to make the burden of application certification easier, then the onus is on the Linux folks to get their act together and make Linux distros more homogenous. Don't blame the software vendors for this sorry state of affairs.
SirWired
If IBM doesn't want you as a client, you sure as hell don't want IBM as a service contractor!
Who is the nebulous "you" in this statement?
The droves of businesses falling over themselves to switch to Oracle's RHEL clone?
As the article said, if there is customer demand, IBM will certify on it. Personally, I'd be much more interested in certification on Ubuntu or Debian. That would actually offer customers real, technology-based choice, not just "I want to give my money to Larry" choice.
Would you use it if you were not going to run an Oracle DBMS on it? All Oracle products that are not the core DBMS exist for one reason: sell the DBMS.
If you buy anything from Oracle that is not the DBMS (such as OAS) then you are buying a me too, second best product.
Oracle isn't selling to IT people; they're selling to IT peoples' managers.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Of course they have a vested interest not to support it. IBM makes DB2.
Also IBM wants you to buy an IBM server with your DB2 database. Oracle linux can run on Sun's which also is IBM's competitor.
This is purely political and not unexpected.
http://saveie6.com/
the Unix Wars all over again.
Look, guys. Interoperate, or die. Simple as that.
Coderz 4 Life
... wouldn't it be a good idea to keep other stuff off your Oracle box, anyway?
http://outcampaign.org/
Well, the software configuration you are using is not supported, our software engineer can be onsite in 3 hours to help you sort the problems out. Oh and btw, that'll be $300 per hour with no guarantee of a fix.
Deleted
This is a big problem with Linux, and no amount of wishful thinking will make the problem go away. Apps not working on all distributions is exactly the sort of problem that the Linux Standards Base (went nowhere) and United Linux (supported by Caldera/SCO) were supposed to prevent.
Yer, and that's where effort needs to go - no on relying on certification
I am very sure that SW vendors would love to not have to test/certify apps on individual distros. It's expensive, time-consuming, error-prone, and a real Pain In The Butt. but what exactly are they supposed to do until all Linux distros conform to some comprehensive standard? (This will never happen, because somebody will always find a "better" way to do things.)
Maybe some IT shop that doesn't care about their software actually working can do that, but actual software companies that make their living selling software MUST perform testing.
;-).
Errrrr, whereabouts did I say that testing wasn't peformed? The point is, relying on certification here gets you nowhere, as you've actually admitted, otherwise testing wouldn't be necessary
You said "Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic." That's not testing, at least not testing I'm going to let any vendor get away with.
Certification IS useful, and is the end-product of a quality testing process. The idea is that customers hold off implementing software on uncertified distros until the SW vendor has verified that it will actually work. Certification is VERY useful, as distro quirks can be found in a vendor test lab before they are found the hard way by a customer. (That isn't to say that certification is flawless, but it is better than a free-for-all.)
Yes, there are many organizations that do that, but those are either small and/or low-quality IT shops and/or non-critical apps.
Errrrr, no. Many organisations big and small don't fly into a panic when something isn't certified - it depends on if it works. See testing comment above. With Linux systems, very little can work easily between them, and people even have an easier time installing open source software on a Windows system.
Whether or not "it works" is something most organizations rely on their software vendor to tell them, at least vendors that they are paying large amounts of maintenance dollars to. It is not a good strategy to render your expensive maint. contract worthless because you start running in an unsupported environment. When something very important like your primary inventory and invoice DB fails suddenly, you most certainly do panic when you call your DB vendor and they tell you "RHEL Vfoo.bar has not been certified yet because of nasty issues. Looks like you found one. Call back when you have backleveled."
The fact of the matter is that there ARE differences between distributions, and those differences have been known to break a lot of applications.
Making that statement doesn't solve the problem.
This statement was merely a response to your statement: "I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it." There IS something wrong with running software on "Linux" because the free-for-all huge pile of distros means there is no such thing as "Linux", at least not in a fashion useful to a vendor of complex software. Stating that you don't like that doesn't make the problem go away either.
If you certified your mega-dollar application to run on any Linux distro, what do you do the first time some clown calls up with some home-grown hybrid of five different distros and wonders why it doesn't work?
Contribute to the LSB an
This whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally)
by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more
widely used.
ozgur uksal http://www.oracle.com/technology/