Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Acquires K-splice For an Undisclosed Amount

drspliff writes "Oracle today announced it's completed the acquisition of K-Splice, dropping support for Redhat, CentOS, and SUSE, and closing doors to new customers. Unless of course you want to become an Oracle Linux Premier Support subscriber — then it comes as standard."

12 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks a lot, douchebags. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On July 21, 2011, Oracle announced they acquired Ksplice, Inc. At the time of the company was acquired, Ksplice, Inc. claimed to have over 700 companies using the service to protect over 100,000 servers. While the service had been available for multiple Linux distributions, it was stated at the time Ksplice, Inc. was acquired that "Oracle believes it will be the only enterprise Linux provider that can offer zero downtime updates."

    1. Re:Thanks a lot, douchebags. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oracle failed to read the license I think.

      RedHat, please fork ksplice today.

    2. Re:Thanks a lot, douchebags. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ksplice don't own any patents. Microsoft's patent application on a similar technique was rejected - due to clear prior art dating back to the PDP-11.

      Ksplice's value was in smart engineers, but it's time for a distro - a proper distro, that is - to merge this as part of their normal update cycle, and possibly finally implement usplice() as well.

      Damn, they were kind of cool until this. Now they got bought by Oracle. Everyone knows what happens when you get bought by Oracle. I'm kind of annoyed. I'm a Ksplice customer. Or was a Ksplice customer, in any case; unless I can get a very clear answer about future support and pricing in writing, we're done professionally.

  2. Re:Sellouts by syousef · · Score: 5, Funny

    They very well may; Oracle acquired hell about a year and a half ago.

    They won't rot in hell. Hell comes with Oracle Enterprise edition. The Ksplice guys only have Oracle Standard Edition. But they don't want to let go of their existing licenses because the new licenses are sold on a per core rather than per machine basis and they can't afford that. Therefore they only get to go to purgatory, which comes bundled with Standard Edition..

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  3. So much for K-splice by etymxris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I imagine what will happen is what's happened to other open source products Oracle got its hands on. Redhat and SUSE will likely step up to the plate and support kernel splicing without the help of K-Splice. Oracle is trying to give customers a reason to use their version of Linux rather than Redhat's or SUSE's. However, stuff like this just pisses customers off.

    Honestly, I can't understand why anyone continues to use Oracle products any more than is absolutely necessary. It's said that companies only care about the money and don't care about how evil their vendors are. But Oracle time and time again dicks over their customers, and in ways that cost the customers extra money. Eventually executive golf games with the marketing guys aren't going to be enough to keep the sales coming in.

    Which I guess is why they continue to buy established firms and fuck over the existing customer base with price hikes, poorer service, and more restrictive licensing terms.

    1. Re:So much for K-splice by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In a way, it's kind of nice. Oracle will have to ensure RHEL compatibility of kSplice, whereas out-of-the-box it appears the only normally supported options are Ubuntu or Fedora.

      In the announcement Oracle says flat-out that it does not plan to support RHEL. It may be that any changes Oracle makes will probably work fine with RHEL because of the (ahem) similarity between Oracle's distro and Red Hat's, but RHEL customers do not pay Red Hat to distribute a version of Linux with patches that are supposed to work because Oracle says so. Red Hat will still have to do all its usual testing and integration on anything that goes into RHEL, and it will also be on the hook to provide support to its enterprise customers, so whatever Oracle does to the source code saves Red Hat pretty much nothing.

      Also, Oracle could easily make its own fork of K-Splice right now and release it exclusively under a proprietary license, because it just became the copyright holder. There's nothing that precludes a copyright holder from making a derivative work based on its own GPL code and releasing it under a different license. If Oracle did change the license, any old versions of K-Splice would still be available under the GPL, but Oracle would be free to distribute any future versions as binary-only modules.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  4. Re:Sellouts by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reminds me of that South Park episode:
    "What's a sellout?"
    - "If you work in the entertainment industry and you make any money, you're a sellout".


    Seriously, these guys created K-Splice and they should keep their business going as is, instead of selling to Oracle for (probably) an ass-load of money? For you? Or should they be free to do with their business and their product as they please?

    You, of course, are free to create your own version of K-Splice. Except of course that Oracle will have tied up the idea with patents and a pack of blood-thirsty lawyers.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Re:Sellouts by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, what a bunch of jerks developing and offering a service and then making money with it and ultimately getting a (hopefully) nice payday when someone wants to buy it.

    When you think of free software, think of freedom of speech. I may not agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it. Same thing here. It's not like nobody else could implement something similar, it's just not provided to you on a sliver platter for free anymore so your nerd-hackles are raised.

    If you couldn't see this given their long term service model then.. well. Pay closer attention. Any subscription based service for Linux isn't intent on strengthening open source software.

  6. Contempt by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oracle has managed to become the recipient of my complete and utter contempt. Even Microsoft has never managed to do that.
    I got a call from Oracle at work the other day. The asked if it was a bad time to call. I said "You are calling from Oracle, it is always a bad time." They didn't seem shocked by this.
    They wanted to know why I disliked them so much, so I began listing some of their most unconscionable behavior since their take over of Sun, then when I got bored I hung up on them.

    They have not called back yet....

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:Contempt by dcmeserve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mind listing some of that unconscionable behavior here? I'm an employee at the former Sun, but I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the wider business world since the takeover (I'm also just getting back into reading Slashdot...). The main effect of the takeover on me personally has been improved job security in the near term, so I'm curious what else is going on. Thanks.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    2. Re:Contempt by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah. Jonathan fucked up sunsolve, but Larry's made it even worse.

      You know what I had to do the other day? Go through a STACK of Ultra 5s looking for a motherboard with the right version of OpenBoot to work properly in the server I was repairing (which was running a printing press) based on an Ultra 10.

      You know what the Sun^H^H^HOracle answer to my problem is? Re-validate the server because it's been out of support for 10 years (several thousand dollars and many days' wait), get a support contract on it, and then access SunSolve to download the right firmware. FUCK THAT. When I bought those boxes, I could just log in and download it. I should have spidered the damn site, I guess.

      Hey, that's another thing. I re-built a Solaris 10 11/06 server the other day, and went to build SpiderMonkey on it. I need NSPR 4.7, that requires a patch to SUNWpr and SUNWprd. I had to crawl through old /export/home backups until I found the patches I wanted. To effing GPLd software. Couldn't download the patches from Sun any more. WTF!

      I'm so pissed at Sun these days. I'm a legal Solaris license holder, running on Sun hardware that I don't have a support contract on. I do my own support, always have. Occasionally I buy support-by-the-hour if I get in over my head (but that hasn't happened in years).

      So. Now I can't download security patches for the OS. That's right. If anybody finds a hole in the OS they can just drive a truck through and I can't do anything about it. Thank God I don't run any Sun-supplied daemons bare on the 'net.

      And this really pisses me off, I have been a Sun customer since '98 and user since '92. I love the hardware, I love the OS, I love the storage arrays, I love the cluster software, I love the end-to-end-to-integration, but I hate the direction the business is taking.

      I'm just really having a hard time finding good solutions to replace my Sun boxes. So far, LXC looks like a good substitute for sparse-root zones, but I haven't found things like SUNWstade, Sun Cluster, etc., that work nearly as well. Fortunately my development work is GNU-stack, so I'm not stuck porting away from Sun Forte.

      GRR!

      Sorry, just needed to vent. Very frustrated user here.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  7. Worth it? by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem I have with kSplice is it is a solution to a problem that most everyone stopped caring about years ago. People with real work to do stopped treating the output of uptime as a sacred cow and started putting the resiliency at the application layer in multi-server environments. Relatively low outage of a component for scheduled maintenance is nice, but reducing that to zero is well beyond the point of diminishing returns since the app better not care if that server goes down anyway (or else for all your efforts an uncorrectable ECC error will come and just ruin your day).

    It's been a while since I read up on it, but if I recall it worked kind of like a rehook of system calls as the opportunity arises. This means you don't have a particularly strong assurance that a security or bug fix actually is in effect for all running instance of an application, and it also limited the sorts of updates that could go in. It's kind of like how you could update glibc without explicitly restarting any daemons, but you won't actually see the benefit of that update until you actually take the hit to let the application exit and restart to induce load of the better code into ram.

    Hate to admit it, as much as MS got made fun of for rebooting after every update, it really is the way to go in a practical perspective if you don't want to be bitten by some kernel/glibc vulnerability even after you *think* you've updated.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.