Slashdot Mirror
Oracle's Take On Red Hat Linux
darthcamaro writes "For nearly three years, Oracle has had its own version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, claiming the two versions are essentially the same thing. But are they really? As it turns out, there are a few things on which Oracle and Red Hat do not see eye-to-eye, including file systems and virtualization. The article quotes Wim Coekaerts, Oracle's director of Linux engineering, saying, 'A lot of people think Oracle is doing Enterprise Linux as just basically a rip off of Red Hat but that's not what this is about. ... This is about a support program, and wanting to offer quality Linux OS support to customers that need it. The Linux distribution part is there just to make sure people can get a freely available Linux operating system that is fully supported.'"
This is great. When the only thing differentiating Redhat from Oracle is service, Redhat will win because they are the ones actually creating the product. If there is any single company that I'd like to see pushed into the ground by open source, it is Oracle. Whereas Microsoft is kind of a bumbling giant that can't quite get things right but gets by on chair throwing, Oracle is downright evil. They will actively destroy another company if it makes them a cent.
On the other hand, Oracle is much less likely to go under because they produce other things of value that the open source community will have difficulty replacing (because we don't do much business software).
Qxe4
i've never bothered to look at oracle linux, because i can get 'free' redhat through centos, and when i want paid support, i can get it directly through redhat.
without some other differentiation, what is oracle providing that isnt there from the others?
so yes, it is just a rip off of red hat.
One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison...
Um, so basically it is a rip off of Red Hat just with Red Hat stripped out and Oracle's own filesystem added to the kernel, with a different VM. Thats it. Still maintains binary compatibility, etc. This is basically like someone trying to justify that Linux Mint is some grand new distribution when it is nothing more then Ubuntu with a few extra tweaks and drivers added.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Oracle Cluster File System. Whether you need it or not is up to you. Oracle also provides OCFS modules for Red Hat to make it easy on people.
Serious question. My employer has recently stated that they would prefer us to use Oracle Linux for future installations instead of Red Hat. Just looking for some insight from someone else who has taken the plunge.
when logic fails, bullshit prevails
I support a software product in a telco, and had talks with its IT managers about the Oracle Linux issue. They have lots of Red Hats but see the Oracle offering interesting (and are implementing it) because:
1) Linux (RedHat or others) are really stable systems (compared with other Unixes they had or have), so the support provider switch is not seen as a dramatic issue
2) They can save some cents without (apparently) giving anything. The RedHat support is little money for that kind of company, but a saving always looks good for the directors
3) They avoid one provider's negotiation as a whole (which is a big win: less paper, less meetings, less vendor talk, less decision process, etc.)
4) They mostly ignore the distributed filesystem issues, and for virtualization just apply the leader (VmWare), so the Xen/KVM/Xen-Oracle discussion is not too relevant
5) BTW, for some diverse reasons, their software providers seem to dislike CentOS (maybe the RedHat's negative marketing made its effect, who knows)
I'm not THE most knowledgeable on the minutae of these, but all the bad blood about Red Hat/ Oracle seems silly: The whole point of "Free Software"/Linux is that any company does not "own" code or software (well, they still do, but give up any claim to interfere with others' use of it). Commercial Linux companies obviously need to make their money thru support services. So Oracle thinks they can compete against Red Hat in this area. Obviously, Red Hat as the signifigant maintainer/updater MAY have an advantage. All the end-users get to decide it themselves, and since the code-base is so close, it's relatively easy to switch back and forth. What is the problem when "Free Software" is working exactly how it's supposed to? So what if Oracle eats Red Hat's business for lunch without contributing back? Linux will still be improved by those who want to improve it. All that such a scenario would mean is that (if it occurs) the model of maintenance/support service subsidizing development may not work for all cases. If that's true, then so what?
Before everyone goes all stupid crazy about Oracle versus Red Hat Steel Cage Match, I'd just like to point out that Oracle has been around since 1977. Redhat: 1995. Redhat brought in $400 million in revenue in 2007. Oracle? $22.43 billion. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Oracle is a freight train, and Redhat is a skinny guy who jogs a couple times a week in the business world.
If I go to senior management and say I'd like to use Redhat Linux, they'll go "What's that?" If I say I want to run Oracle Linux, they'll ask "How much will that save us?" There is no question of Oracle's reliability, or market performance. None. Oracle doesn't need to prove itself. So if you're a fan of getting Linux into the business, you should be saying "hip-hip hoooray" to this; You've got a free pass now at the executive board meetings to install Linux now somewhere. Or... or you can bitch about how it's the wrong flavor of linux and tear into Oracle for ruining the good name of Linux, how Orthodox Linux users are into shaming other users, and Oracle is more like New Evangelical Linux -- half the guilt, twice the usability, etc., etc.
Your call.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If you run an Oracle shop with DB support, Oracle's Linux support is a deal that's hard to beat. It's comparatively cheap and coverage is 24/7 across all time zones until a problem is fixed no matter if it's database or OS related. Try that with other Linux support vendors. If it ends up being a DB issue, they'll point you to Oracle and tell you to have a nice day. Then you can start the trouble ticket process all over again and hope Oracle doesn't say it's an OS issue. Anyone up for finger pointing when your mission critical system is down?
The greatest challenge that Red Hat (and Oracle) now face is to determine what they're actually selling and make a clear case for the added value that they provide.
I've run a few large Linux shops, recently including one requiring over 300 RHEL licenses and I can tell you that without a doubt that both Red Hat and Oracle sales people have zero idea what they are selling, what the differences may be and what added value they provide.
Red Hat copyrighted materials are the Red Hat trademark, logo, etc and the key difference between all of the RHEL derivates is simply the absence of that name and logo. Each distribution can pick and chose what patches and changes they want to merge in but everything is open source. It's how CentOS, Oracle, etc can make a competing "product." It's a bundle of freely available code and not much more. Where products differentiate is their delivery mechanisms and support of said code.
Things get complicated when you start asking Oracle and Red Hat what you're actually buying and what that support entails you to. I can tell you from first hand experience that I have never had a single issue get resolved via Red Hat's support organization - including clear bugs with tickets that still exist (primarily memory management code with kswapd.) Maybe they're only setup to help people get printers working with cups? And the same goes with Oracle Support.
By Oracle's move of choosing what code to merge and adopt they are misleading customers by openly calling it and comparing it to RHEL - which is exactly how it's sold and pitched to customers.
Oracle even offers a utility to run on your RHEL installation to re-brand it to Oracle Enterprise Linux. It replaces a bunch of packages and removes the Red Hat name, points it at the Oracle yum sources and calls it a day.
If Oracle wants to create a world class Linux they need to provide the tools, support and honesty to make it a successful competitor rather than relying on their name (which does not hold much clout, despite what their marketing guru's may think.) Combine that with resolution of real problems and not just entry-level technical support and you'll have a winner.
Come to think of it, that applies to Red hat as well.
i've never bothered to look at oracle linux, because i can get 'free' redhat through centos, and when i want paid support, i can get it directly through redhat.
without some other differentiation, what is oracle providing that isnt there from the others?
so yes, it is just a rip off of red hat.
You would ONLY use Oracle Linux to run your Oracle products on. You wouldn't use it for your file and print, or web server. They wouldn't want you to anyway.
It's largely a marketing thing. If you run your Oracle products on Oracle Linux, Oracle will support the entire software stack. That can be important to a lot of enterprise customers, no turf wars about who's fault it isn't.
As a bonus, the Oracle Linux support contract is (and should be) significantly cheaper than Red Hat (or Novell - the other supported Linux vendor). This is because they really only support those functions that are required to run the Oracle products. They aren't interested in supporting your file and print server etc. Whereas Red Hat and Novell have to support everything.
Can you imagine what Oracle would say if you had an issue that was borderline Oracle / OS and you were running CentOS? Even though CentOS is a re-badged Red Hat, it isn't Red Hat, and it isn't on Oracle's supported OS list.
The sensible thing to do would be to run Oracle Linux for your Oracle products and Red Hat (or CentOS if you didn't want support) for everything else. As they are all virtually the same, it's a lot easier for your administrators.
Ever stop to think
I hate to correct an otherwise good post, but that is at best misleading, and at worst just plain wrong. Redhat has announced that they are only going to support existing Xen installations, while providing a way to migrate to KVM.
Xen is dead with Redhat. At least for now.
Personally, I think this is a major screwup by RH, as I know of sites which had been stongly RH but are now looking at dropping them. Sorry, KVM just isn't ready for serious primetime. What's worse, is that the majority of Virtualization research out there is centered around Xen, for the simple fact that it's been around longer.
So Xen is the focus of the next generation of technology, and will remain that way for a while.
And before the KVM fanatics jump up shouting the usual "but-it's-faster!" mantra, you should be aware that Type II hypervisor support (ala KVM) was announced a couple weeks ago at the Xen Summit (at Oracle's HQ, btw).
So one can either choose a KVM type of hypervisor, or the original Xen hypervisor.
Oh, and I heard that the guy who did it coded up in 12 days as a lark.
But unfortunately one doesn't seem to have a choice with Redhat..
I certainly hope CentOS picks up the Xen work from Fedora this year. Otherwise I'll have to look to Oracle for serious datacenter work. I'm not happy about that at all, as I've been a very strong fan of Redhat (and have given them lots of business.
But this really underscores how good it is sticking with Open Source. At least I DO have choices.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
But, if you want to put a billion records into a database, and sleep at night, there's only one game in town, and that's Oracle
The largest database I maintain for a site I coded has 15 billion records atm and it's doing fine in MySQL, with a relatively busy daily peak time with well over 100 users, all on shared hosting.
/., etc, etc all using free databases for big work too, so I think your attitude is a bit dated.
In fact the only problem I've had with database growth was when an auto incrementing ID went over ~2 billion in MySQL, which put it over PHP's 2^32-1 integer limit.
And yup this all has to do locking and transactions, not just MyISAM with basic queries.
My personal experience counts for nothing of course but Google,
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
1. If you have a mixed server park (that is: host different applications too, other than Oracle's), migrating is *not* feasible. I'm not going to support yet another OS, just because it is *possibly* a tiny bit more convenient once it is set up. Because before it's set up, I'll need to have deployment mechanisms for another OS, management tools for another OS etc. Not worth it. ;-)
2. To extend my first point: Oracle's support might be a bit cheaper for the OS, my time is a lot more expensive than a thousand bucks worth of support on a years basis. That matters when having to support more OS'es.
3. Red Hat fixes the bugs, and then releases the src.rpm. Oracle has to Q&A that, port it, upload and release it. Updates for Oracle Linux will be (a lot) later than Red Hat's. See how much time it is costing CentOS to release 5u3. No offence, but for production systems, I want to have potential fixes *now* if the situation we're in is hurting us.
4. I'm just about to get RHCA certified. Can I get that level of Linux certification from Oracle? Don't start saying the OS'es are compatible, because they are not, see point 5 and 6.
5. The only thing Oracle can do on the long term, if fork RHEL. The amount of support, the changes they make and the fact they want to support until the end of time in the own way, might not be called a fork, but it will be just that in the end. So much for compatibility.
6. They ported yast. Need I say more?
7. Not really a business reason but check this out. Oracle announced Oracle Linux just a couple of months after RH scooped JBoss from underneath Larry's nose. One of the previous posts is right: Oracle is not trying to compete with RH. It's trying to get revenge.
Conceptually, it is a good idea to have their own distribution.
Conceptually, Red Hat would be a good choice of a distribution to fork.
Conceptually, it's a good idea.
But, practically speaking, they're screwing it all up.
No, it is not good business to take without giving.
No, it doesn't reduce the price of Oracle's server stack significantly to cut Red Hat out.
Not significantly, not with what they lose by cutting Red Hat out.
No, it isn't business savvy. It's cutting off their nose to spite their face. And it's totally misunderstanding the meaning of free as in freedom, not as in beer.
In essence, it's trying to give their customers free beer and put it on Red Hat's tab.
Now, maybe they hope to absorb enough of Red Hat's business to induce Red Hat to sell the company. But that kind of predatory business always comes back around to bite you in the end, and it eventually destroys your own business.
Maybe they are actually feeding some of the revenue back to Red Hat. If that's the case, I'll take back part of this rant. But they still have said a lot of things publicly that sound more like a spoiled rich kid celebrating that he gets to legally take the poor kid's candy. And the AC who said it was business savvy seems to be doing the same thing.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.