Oracle Linux Adopters Suffer Backlash

atbarboz writes "One of the first converts to Oracle's support for Linux said it has endured a public backlash since its decision to drop Red Hat. 'Melbourne company Opes Prime Stockbroking told ZDNet Australia that in the weeks following its announcement to adopt Oracle Linux, upset Linux enthusiasts phoned, e-mailed and wrote about the company online to complain at the decision. "People called us out of the blue to tell us we were idiots," said Opes executive director Anthony Blumberg.'"

Comments

Re:Enough infighting...

[whoever57]

Presumably someone from the CentOS project pays for a Red Hat support plan (or two, or three), and in return is able to download the product (and get the sources as required by the GPL).

Please come back when you know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Red Hat's ftp site? For example: all the source you could want without any login requirement.

Re:Hang on for a second...

[slamb]

All of the people I know who use Gentoo use it because of the amazing build toolset and customizability. I can compile everything with "-g" and debug anything on the system through glibc... and see source listings at any stack frame. That's incredibly valuable

You should try a more mainstream distro again. They've anticipated this need, so you don't need to rebuild anything. RedHat-based systems (and I believe SuSE and Debian/Ubuntu as well) all have a build system which extracts debugging symbols from binaries, placing them in -debuginfo packages along with the source code. gdb has been modified to look for debugging info in this location. You can run gstack on a coredump, realize you don't have the right debugging symbols, do a yum install foo-debuginfo, run it again, and get the right information. (And even have list do the right thing.) You can audit exactly how much disk space these packages use with a simple du -sk /usr/lib/debug and remove them without rebuilding. There's more information on the Fedora wiki.

CFLAGS customization makes Gentoo users (particularly ricers) feel superior, but in practice, I don't see any advantages. (I've never seen a situation where it made a worthwhile performance boost. There was an interesting thread about this on pgsql-performance a while back.) One major disadvantage is obvious: long compile times. A couple less so: it's harder to reproduce bugs affected by compiler options, and you need a separate scheme for updating systems which can't do the compile themselves.

I used to recompile the kernel with flags for my hardware. Now the system has been modularized, so unless I'm writing kernel code myself, I just use the RedHat vendor kernel which has been extensively QAed. In time, the same thing will happen to userspace binaries with optional dependencies: instead of detecting at configure time that I have support therefore modifying the base package's code, we'll move toward add-in modules that get dlload()ed in to provide the external functional that dependencies are needed for.

Odd... I've never met anyone who was actually fanatical about RedHat. Or even really liked it. It usually comes down to either "we can buy support for it" or "it installs and is hands-off after that." Back when I still used Fedora, I fell into the latter category... tolerating it, because it worked.

RedHat makes a good system, and they make contributions that benefit everyone. That you don't know anyone fanatical about it is not surprising. You're a Gentoo guy who hasn't used any other system in a while, so your sample's pretty skewed. And it's rare for people to get fanatical about the dominant system, particularly people who have an irrational fear of companies with working business models.