What is Digg?81 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26"Idiots" is a harsh word, but Oracle is unproven, so these people are doing something risky. Consider these two items:
"Unbreakable Linux still unproven, analyst warns"
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1233083,00.html
Oracle F2Q07 (Qtr End 11/30/06) Earnings Call Transcript
,----[ Quote ]
| In the first 30 days, we had 9,000 downloads of Unbreakable Linux
| from our website and hundreds of customers connecting their servers
| to our network.
`----
http://seekingalpha.com/article/22626
These numbers are abysmal (Red Hat counts downloads by the millions), which is something that got highlighted a couple of months ago. Even those which Oracle claims to have won (e.g. Yahoo) seem to suggst that Ellison is exaggerating, if not altogether lying. - flatfish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16So are 99 percent of the 300+ different distributions of Linux.
Untested, that is.
As for the Linux community being zealots, all one has to do is wander over to comp.os.linux.advocacy to see the extreme damage the Linux zealots are causing to Linux.
Zealots like Schestowitz with his boyco??novel? (no I won't give you a seed for google Roy) site and his extreme hate for anything non open source and Linux do far more damage to Linux than they could ever understand.
There is one nutsack over there that is posting all kinds of articles from 1998 concerning Microsoft.
Get over it already.
The problem with Linux isn't the OS, it's the community which is perceived as being loaded to the gills with zealots and nobody likes a zealot. - floatesque, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14As an Oracle DBA, knowing how much of a pain in the ass using and learning Oracle products is, switching TO an Oracle-branded version of any piece of software that's otherwise widely available, is, well, IDIOTIC!
- whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -4/+14Someone on the internet called someone else on the internet an idiot? God, what an idiot.
- roxya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12 ,----[ Quote ]
| In case you have forgotten, the proper way to quote someone
| is to throw a pair of these things: " (quotation marks) around the
| quote. Not all this --- [ Quote ] *****.
`----
I agree! - techiemac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I find the history of Linux fascinating...
1. We all used to complain that no company is adopting/using Linux.
2. Once people start to adopt Linux or even begin to talk about Linux and mention a few deficiencies, we slam those people for pointing it out while another group quietly goes ahead and fixes said deficiencies making things better for all.
3. Now that easy to use distros are out there, we slam people for taking the "newb" way out by using said distros.
4. Once the easy to use distros are out there and become established, we slam people for not using those distros and slam the people in that were slamming people in statement 3 as being elitist.
5. Now when some mega company adopts, and begins to sell Linux based on some older, distro, we slam them for doing so even though Linux is becoming a major contender in the market (and people have learned how to properly market it).
6. Microsoft quietly laughs at all the infighting going on with Linux as their marketeers point out how Linux can't be a stable as Windows Server because there is so much strife among Linux users.
It's about providing the best tool for the job. Not about who copies what distro and sells it, or how some OS sucks, or how some sysadmin is a "newb" for not using whatever distro, or how company X is bundling a proprietary solution with their Linux distro to make some money and pay the bills.
You see, when we all in fight, companies do not want to be a part of that. They simply look at the group based on the actions of a small number of people and move on to what may not be the best tool for the job.
When there are millions (sometimes billions) of dollars at stake, professionalism matters. Our best bet is to educate people as to the pros and cons to each distro and OS (in the media, not by calling some receptionist and complaining how that company picked so and sos distro). - fujimonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9exactly. Someone had to try out linux for the first time. Calling them up and harassing them over the phone or via email just goes to show how immature the linux movement / culture can be.
- sadankk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Anti-Oracle FUD. Or maybe Red Hat propaganda.
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@ryebrye
Heres the problem though. You're logic created a stalemate.
People shouldn't use it because its unproven. Its cannot be proven reliable because people arent using it.
In essence, Your saying it Cannot prove itself reliable, on the grounds that it has not yet proven itself reliable.
Its kind of like every tech job wanting 3 years of experience. You cant get the experience, because you dont have the experience. The only loophole is companies that are willing to take risks, in both scenarios. Those companies should be applauded, not demonized or trash-talked. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Someone's got to be on the bleeding edge, or else no one else would have anyone to follow.
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Worst of all, figuring out how to use Oracle products is an exercise in frustration."
What? No.. All you have to do is read:
Oracle Database 10g: A Beginner's Guide (448 pages)
Oracle Database 10g: The Complete Reference (1200 pages)
Oracle Database 10g PL/SQL Programming (896 pages)
Oracle Database 10g DBA Handbook (736 pages)
And you'll have a pretty good primer on how to begin using the database. - TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oracle the second largest software company in the world.
They sell tons of what I call "BIG SOFTWARE" huge backend ERP, SCM, CRM, BI, KM, and BPM stuff....
You use or contribute to a lot of their stuff and probably don't know it. Not visible in the consumer tech market, ask any CIO about Oracle. They're a major player. - gharding, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@floatesque:
Maybe the company was looking for a solution that used 4x the amount of RAM of any other Linux distro out there. If so, Oracle has them covered! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7> I've always found Oracle's products to be overpriced and with less features than the competitors. Of course, I've only had experience with their database products.
Overpriced.. Their prices range from free to millions of dollars for their database depending upon your needs. I can't imagine it getting much cheaper than free.
Less features than competitors? Name 1 feature that another database has that Oracle doesn't. You must be smoking something good or just seriously misinformed. They have the only database out there that can guarantee read consistency and has a built in web server/application developement environment (again...for free). Built in olap, partitioning, clustering, built in java and web server along with thousands of other features. - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I have to agree that Idiots is a completely blown out of proportion response. It is just people looking to start up a fight. Unbreakable Linux may be an unproven platform, but people are entitled to try and use it and develop it into a proven platform. It'll never get anywhere if nobody uses it.
- MadOgre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7My Linux can beat up your Linux.
- TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oracle has a lot of "out of the box" kinds of products.
My big complaint about Oracle is not the software cost, but the fact that their products are hard to install, so hard that your average IT staff could not install them without hiring EXPENSIVE consultants.
They claim their new product "Fusion" will be easier to install, setup and maintain. I doubt it, part of Oracle's dominance is that soo many people make their living ONLY dealing with Oracle products. - numb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I've been advocating Linux as a great solution to many problems for well over ten years now. But it drives me nuts when I have someone else trying to shove a Linux solution down my throat when it's not the best fit for a particular project. Not because I don't like Linux, but because it makes Linux look bad when people recommend it for everything under the sun.
This is where I separate the hobbyists from the professionals. A hobbyist will use only the tools he enjoys working with, where a professional will use the tool best suited for the job at hand. Oh, and then there are the zealots. They'll stand there with a holier-than-thou attitude and berate you for not using their preferred platform regardless of their knowledge of other platforms. Hey, my customers are paying me to get a job done, not to use their business as a test bed for the latest and greatest Unbuntu toys.
If you love Linux then show it by recommending it where it is _appropriate_. And don't sit there spouting off derogatory stuff about a platform you've never even used, because you only know Linux. That kind of behavior comes straight from the MCSE n00b handbook. You know that guy that you can't stand because he thinks Microsoft is the solution to everything because he's never used anything but Windows? That's who you sound like to people that have extensively used both platforms and have made logic-based decisions about which products they use.
Sorry for the rant, but if this post helps even one hobbyist begin acting like a professional, then I've accomplished something. (This includes you Linux, BSD, Apple, Amiga :) , and Microsoft users...) - floatesque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oracle's core database product is pretty solid, however, the crap they surround their core apps with is substandard and rigged together. Worst of all, figuring out how to use Oracle products is an exercise in frustration. This is why Oracle DBAs make the big bucks: they suffer so much trying to process the convoluted learning curve that is Oracle, that they are in high demand, and once they finally figure out how things work, they think they're special and like that the products are so difficult to implement because it gives them job security. In the end, Oracle is a few good products wrapped up in a huge bureaucratic mess designed to milk as much money from customers as possible -- it's the old mainframe paradigm employed in a PC world.
- tekrat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10schestowitz said almost everything I was going to say. Just remember what Unbreakable Linux is. Its an attempt to fill a niche of low to mid-range database server on the Intel structure with a few Linux goodies thrown in on the side (like Apache and RoR).
If you have a client install Unbreakable Linux you don't have to worry about hardware or software configuration because they should know how to configure Linux. And if they do have questions then booty; you make them pay through the nose for tech support. Almost no marketing and a broad platform, a win win for Oracle once they hit the market saturation point (around a 60,000 - 100,000 installs). - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I don't have any personal experience with Unbreakable Linux, but my father-in-law, a non-Linux guy, had to take a course which required Linux... in fact, they forced them to use Unbreakable Linux. Now, my father-in-law is usually a bit of a Linux basher, and would tease me about using it, and Unbreakable Linux was virtually unusuable for him. He could not install it. It was one problem after another, until in the end, he, I and every other Linux guru gave up and said that his hardware simply didn't work with Linux...
And then he tried Ubuntu, and it worked perfectly. And then he tried OpenSUSE and it worked perfectly. And he tried Red Hat and it worked perfectly.
In fact, the problems he had with Unbreakable were all fixed in Fedora 3 and 4. How ridiculous is that.
Now, he swears by Ubuntu, as the nicest and easiest distro he's ever used, even easier than Windows.
Go figure. He went from a hardcore Windows guy to an Ubuntu fan in a matter of a week. Now its uncomfortable for me to hear praises about Ubuntu from him... :P
Now I've never used Unbreakable, but it seems to me to be rather .... *****. - Denithor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, here is my take on things, having set up Oracle database and application server on several platforms (Sun Solaris, Red Hat, CentOS, and various versions of windows). It really doesn't matter what OS you have. And in making a business decision where those 2 products were the main ones I used, I would have to say that getting support for the OS and the back/front end of thing from the same place is a smart move. I have had good support from Oracle if I ever had a problem, and only once did we have to re-install because the windows install was messed up. Yes, it has a learning curve, but it took me about 6 months before I got to the point were I could handle just about any problem thrown at me. A lot of software takes a lot longer to figure out. I would compare Oracle database/application server products to unix/linux in that there are a lot of options and settings you can change, but it is easy to do basic administration through the GUI.
"Can you imagine renting your OS? Or getting the OS free if you pay for a class on how to use it?"
By the way, you don't rent any product from Oracle, what you pay for is called support. Yes, I know that Microsoft puts out free patches for windows, and I Imagine that Oracle will too. However, the upgrades and patches for the other products are what you pay for as far as support goes, not the original software itself. Any software/patches/upgrades that you purchased are licensed copies, you don't lose our license for the software if you no longer want support. - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes.
- saden1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4re: jmacdonagh
Oracle DB has less features than who/what? - FriedTurkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There are probably worse versions of Linux. Lets face the facts that the hatred is because this Linux version is done by a large corporation. If it was some small shop or community driven nobody would say anything.
- VenTatsu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@RyeBrye
FUD is always bad. It's definition includes the line "[FUD] has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon."
Disinformation is always a negative in any rational debate. Concern is fine, but when someone cross the line to inventing concerns where they don't exist, or expanding them past what is reasonable they are not providing a benefit, only a hindrance to decision making. - cyranthus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3wow, someone on the net called someone an idiot.... BIG NEWS!!!
-buried! - Denithor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Why pay oracle for nothing. The guy said that was the first call he had gotten from Red Hat since they were a customer.
That says he's not using the support anyway. So why pay oracle for Red Hat's hard work patching and packaging?"
If you had read the article a little more carefully, it says that Dell provided them with support after they bought the machines. Red Hat had nothing to do with it. That would be why Red Hat never contacted them until they got pissed off that they were losing a contract. - bobpaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Isn't Unbreakable Linux intended to be 100% compatible with Red Hat Enterprise? I thought it was just rebranded Redhat, just like CentOS is de-branded Redhat.
Saying Unbreakable Linux is unproven is just like saying CentOS, or even Red Hat is unproven. The only difference between RHEL and Unbreakable Linux is with Unbreakable, you have to call Oracle for support. For customers that are only using Linux for Oracle database servers, this makes a lot of sense. Now you only have to call Oracle, instead of switching between Redhat and Oracle as one puts the blame on the other.
Personally, I would never touch it, but really... get a clue. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@timdigg
yeah.. that last oracle install that I did where I had to click 'ok' a whole of four times was so difficult.. I had to call my 10 year old over to help explain it to me. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If these "zealots" made as many phone calls to companies that use windows as an enterprise platform, then they could at least be labeled equal opportunity ass clowns. I seriously doubt that happened, so they are cannibalistic ass clowns, going for the throat of "kindred spirits" essentially - which makes little sense to me personally.
I mean seriously... we have to measure our victories carefully here guys. At least the company WENT with Linux. I'd see more reason to lam-bast people deciding to use Novell's offerings. AFAIK there is no reason to get harsh on Oracle, they are not making deals that come close to violating the GPL in ambiguous ways. They're just giving Red Hat some competition. - sidhatra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok, linux fanatics aren't the most cordial bunch, but I dont see any need for an "Oracle" distro
"Another benefit was to have only one support team.
"I've been doing this for a long time, and there can be a lot of finger pointing between support teams," said Coggins. "Now we have the same support group the whole way through.""
please... sounds like a bean counter's rationale, not anything a system administrator would say.
Among other things, I support Sun apps, on Solaris, on Sun hardware for years and I have not yet been in a situation where I wanted to say "thank god everything is Sun so there is no finger pointing". Sun's support going downhill over the years, aside, if there was ever an opportunity to blow smoke at me than each support group, hardware, os, application would find a way to blame the other.
I dont think thats a Sun thing, I think thats a typical bureaucracy thing as I also see that tendency at the office...
Looking for the one phone call to support sounds like fools gold only a middle manager would fall for. - cantormath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We should focus more on just getting people using linux, idiot or not.
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If Packard Bell started producing cheaper blade servers than Dell or IBM, would you consider a company smart for chosing them? Would you applaud that company for their efforts? No - because Packard Bell's reputation for quality of hardware is notoriously low... I consider Oracle the Packard Bell of the Software world, but the only difference is - Oracle is still around, and many people think Oracle has a nice DB product with 10g.
Fact is - Oracle is a big company. Their 10g database is made to be confusing so you have to pay support. They have a pattern of bad support and confusing documentation, and you want to trust them to maintain and support your OS?
I think a smarter decision would be to go from RHEL to CentOS than from RHEL to Oracle... at least then you aren't paying maintenance. - jmacdonagh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I've always found Oracle's products to be overpriced and with less features than the competitors. Of course, I've only had experience with their database products.
- InsaneGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The reason to use Oracle Linux is to get the OS support from Oracle; having dealt with Oracle support in the past for the primary product... I wouldn't say that the word idiot is completely wrong.
- hockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Replace every occurrence of "we" and "users" with "zealot" and replace every occurrence of "linux" with "preferred os" and you've summed up over 95% of tech rants on the internet.
There is nothing to see here with this story. It's zealotry nothing more and nothing less. - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I totally agree that part of oracle's vendor lock in is the complexity of oracle leads people who would otherwise be technology neutral to become "oracle people" just by having to deal with it's eccentricities. Like a difficult to read book, you trick yourself into thinking it -must- be good if the it requires so much effort.
Also, have you ever seen a happy oracle DBA? I've only ever seen them serious or tired. - beercosoftware, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree, they are idiots. I am also retaking my RHCE in a couple months.
WHY, wouldn't they just use CentOS if they were going down that route?
Why pay oracle for nothing. The guy said that was the first call he had gotten from Red Hat since they were a customer.
That says he's not using the support anyway. So why pay oracle for Red Hat's hard work patching and packaging?
It's stupid. They're stupid. It's a scam. - flatfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well put!
One thing I notice about the Linux community zealots (not normal Linux users, but the fringe zealots) is that when things don't go their way 100 percent, they go off in a corner and cry like a baby.
IOW they seem unwilling to compromise at all.
It has to all what they want in full, or they start the boycott sites running. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In so far as to relate my own experience of how crap Unbreakable (or as my father-in-law calls it, Breakable Linux) is and that this is likely a not-so-wise decision on this companies behalf, when there are far better distributions that don't charge you for everything, including updates.
People calling in to tell them they are idiots is a bit out of hand tho. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And far more likely so. Everybody knows Linux users cannot afford the long distance phone calls.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4First we complain that nobody uses Linux, and now we complain that they're not using the right kind of Linux. Would the zealots prefer that the company switch to Windows instead? Stop complaining, get a life. That company can use whatever OS they want. It doesn't affect my business, and it won't affect yours.
- michelrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perfect! It makes me bored.
- bluntarski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why does anyone care what this company does anyway? Let them use dbase 4 for VAX/VMS for all I care. They don't answer to jerkoffs on the internet, they answer to their stockholders. This is no different than a company changing office supply companies or who takes care of their trash....
- bluntarski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What does your father in law using ubuntu have to do with what this company does?
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bobpaul
"Saying Unbreakable Linux is unproven is just like saying CentOS, or even Red Hat is unproven."
I suspect the real problem is that from the zealot viewpoint, what Oracle is doing is circumventing the whole Open Source business model..
The Open Source business model which Red Hat popularized (forget selling software, make money from support and services) has been held up as a shining example of how to earn money from Open Source. Well, this concept has a big hole in it --- anyone can service the software. Oracle is the first to step up and exploit this hole and the zealots don't like it one bit. - sulf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bobpaul
You lose all hardware certifications if you recompile RHEL yourself, be it Oracle or CentOS. Red Hat cannot guarantee compatibility anymore, and Oracle hasn't made any HCL certifications by itself yet, that's why it is "unsupported". - TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Did Ellison buy MySQL yet?
- rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well... Running Oracle on Windows is far more idiotic, IMHO. If you need something like Oracle, you shouldn't trust it to an OS with a bad reputation among just about everyone knows its competitors.
But Digg is the land of the Microsoft Astroturf Team, so I will be dugg down in 3.. 2... 1... -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is