What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- k-dogg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Not sure I buy that Oracle's reasons are BS.
More significant than Larry's claims about Oracle's competency as an enterprise software support organization-- "We're really good at supporting software, so we can do that for Linux"-- is Oracle's ability to indemnify clients against legal action over IP uncertainty brought by SCO, for instance.
Linux is now as much a part of Oracle's tech stack as Windows is for Microsoft-- except it's built on open standards, unlike Windows.
So from the business perspective, I can see that this could dramatically improve the corporate adoption rate of Linux.
As Larry said during the Q/A session following his remarks-- after denying that he expected this move to spell the doom of Red Hat-- when asked if this would "put Windows out of business", he replied "Oh, we should all be so lucky!"
If this all plays out as, I'm sure, Larry hopes...
Oracle has an operating system.
And Microsoft has a big problem.- BryanSD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think Oracle is biting on more than they can chew. The fact is that Red Hat's support of Linux is very good. Patches for Red Hat's Enterprise software is already available and Oracle's claims that it isn't just doesn't stick here. The article's author is also right about the GPL issues Oracle will face if it tries to control the source code for those patches. Indemnify clients because of SCO...that's a dead horse and really is a non-issue. It's almost as if Oracle put out the playbook from three years ago and not really understanding the Linux market of today.
To me this really just doesn't make business sense. I know the analysts currently wouldn't agree with me...but I think Oracle is going to have it's foot in it's mouth when it comes to Linux and needing someone like Red Hat and/or Novell to bail them out. Don't be too surprised if in the next quarter we all find Red Hat's revenue is doing quite well. Oracle just put out all the smoke and mirrors this week...and in the end everyone will be surprised what Oracle is and what Oracle isn't. - kingfarook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Everyone has a rather strong and negative opinion on this as I look at the umteen submitted stories. How about this...
"Oracle out to destroy Windows."
Think about it. They say more bug fixes and most importantly, cheaper support. That will drastically lower the TCO on Linux for many companies. This might even create a OS shift for many servers.
It might be a little far fetched, but this could be good for both parties and the consumer. Not to mention that Oracle has had partnerships with Red Hat for a long time. This isn't the People Soft deal. - moman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Escuse my laziness, I'm gonna repost the long message I posted to slashdot in response to a post which went something like:
Comment:
"In this case, we have the following scenario.
Company A develops linux distribution, supports it.
Company B simply compies Company A's work, supports it as well.
My question is this, what is company A's incentive to develop a distribution? Because the development costs are 0 to company B and substantial to company A, company B can easily undercut the price of company A. It would seem like you'd have to be a fool to develop a distribution, since the GPL forces you to surrender your work to competitors who can easily undercut your price."
My Response:
What does support involve? When your customer calls up and says something isn't working, there is a good chance that its a bug software (even open source software isn't perfect). Company B has 2 choices: 1. Wait till company A fixes it (bad, you lose customers this way) or 2. Fix it yourself.
Since Oracle is hiring many Linux developers (see article), we can assume they plan to fix things themselves. Since the software is open source, they must release their patches, at which point Red Hat simply copies them and gets Oracles work for free.
All parties benefit from each others work on the open platform.
As for Oracle being in direct competition w/ Red Hat, Good! Now Red Hat has three choices, 1. they keep everything the same (bad, lose customers) 2. keep price the same but compete on the quality of their service as compared to Oracle's (hard but can be done) 3. lower their price (meaning cutbacks and such, the unfortunate price of a capitalistic economy). Even in the worst case scenario, Red Hat goes belly up and Oracle establishes a "monopoly" (don't see how they can, there are many linux supporters out there), Oracle jacks up the price like any other monopoly. But since the code is and always will be open, entrepreneurs will see an immediate market opportunity, and start buisnesses selling their support at a lower price. Oracle once again has two choices. They 1. Buy out the companies 2. Lower their prices to compete. If they start buying out companies, this will infact encourage many entrepreneurs to start their own Linux support companies with the sole purpose of being bought by Oracle and getting alot of $$$ quickly, resulting in an increase in competition. If Oracle lowers their prices, they probably will be able to put the new startups out of buisness, establish a monopoly, and then we start the process again (new companies arise, etc. etc.) Either way the Open Source model remains intact, and generates lots of competition which is ideal for our free market economy (or would you rather have one company controlling the entire industry?).
- BryanSD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think Oracle is biting on more than they can chew. The fact is that Red Hat's support of Linux is very good. Patches for Red Hat's Enterprise software is already available and Oracle's claims that it isn't just doesn't stick here. The article's author is also right about the GPL issues Oracle will face if it tries to control the source code for those patches. Indemnify clients because of SCO...that's a dead horse and really is a non-issue. It's almost as if Oracle put out the playbook from three years ago and not really understanding the Linux market of today.
- noBananas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6While problematic for Red Hat, Oracle's move is good for the Linux community if they can back up the promises.
- vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This bolt from the blue about Red Hat has me thinking that Oracle is yellow. Wait, don't mind me, I'm just green with envy. I'm sure this issue isn't as simple as black and white.
- eelco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu) has an interesting view on this:
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2006/10/25/fundamentally-this-is-free-software-in-a-proprietary-wrapper/ - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2BS everyone has been begging for this. Oracle is a major pain in the ass to run on Linux. the LD_ASSSUME bull, the symbols that have to be preloaded, the nonsense with the inability to render X11 fonts unless you hack it like crazy.
This is the only way a commercial application can be supported on Linux is via the yet another distro, because they all are just too divergent, and Linux is just too broken from version to version.
Not to mention the 3 versions of libc, the constant shift in kernel ABI's its unmanageable.- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where to start. Oracle products are peculiarly problematic to install and configure under Linux -- in ways that are unlike anything other commercial product available today. I think that's a testament to just how clueless Oracle really is about Linux.
The other things you mention aren't particularly valid. The kernel ABI only varies between major revisions of the kernel. The GNU C library stabilized years ago as well. Those criticisms may have applied some year ago, but are no longer valid.
Today, you'll find little subtantial variation in the basic operatin environment between distributions. We use lots of commercial physical chemistry applications for Linux and the packages work at least on RedHat, SuSe, and Mandriva (what he have in the office), and the commercial video editing software I use at home runs on at least RedHat, SuSe, Mandriva, Xandros, and Ubuntu without any problem and installed from the same package. There's very little particular to a distribution today that would affect whether an application would run on it. Certainly, if you stick to the top dozen or so distributions you can bet they will run any commercial application without a problem.
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where to start. Oracle products are peculiarly problematic to install and configure under Linux -- in ways that are unlike anything other commercial product available today. I think that's a testament to just how clueless Oracle really is about Linux.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ouch. RedHat's stock got its ass kicked today. http://finance.google.com/finance?q=RHAT
- thripper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's like , Red Hat's and Novell's stock went down and Oracle's went up.
- smtelegadis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Something tells me that is exactly the point of this move. Why else would Oracle want to undermine Redhat.
Their stuff has always been hand in hand with Redhat products.
Something tells me this is another People Soft like take over.
- thripper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's like , Red Hat's and Novell's stock went down and Oracle's went up.
- echimu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oracle linux screenshots and more info @
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=433- moman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/images/oracle/bootscreen.png
Just Wow. I dont think Oracle is going to have that many sales w/ a hot pink bootloader :-p
- moman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/images/oracle/bootscreen.png
- ivanbev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I completely concur with Mark Shuttleworth's and BryanSD's comments. It very much looks like they are trying to spite RedHat whilst not wanting to do any work for it (ie not really support it).
It's all well and good white-labelling a distribution of someone else's work (similar to what Centos & WhiteHat Linux do), but it's a whole different thing providing a commercial product directly based on it. People expect support ("how do I do this") and bugfixes if they pay for it; if you don't have the skillset and infrastructure to support that (having people qualifying Oracle products on Linux, even if it is Oracle's primary development platform) is a whole different kettle of fish to actually supporting day-to-day users and those who have problems with a particular scanner/wifi/etc driver or application. If they want to provide suitable support (like that which customers would expect from a company of their size) they will either have to seek out and employ decent people, or they'll need to buy a company that already provides linux support. This is definitely branching out into a whole new area - something which shouldn't be done lightly.
Although I think this comes across as a pretty spiteful action, you could argue that it's not much different to what RedHat did with Postgresql when, rather than licensing support from GreatBridge (a company setup by the main Postgresql people) they created the "RedHat Database"product.
http://sources.redhat.com/rhdb/
http://lwn.net/2001/features/oreilly2001/BruceMomjianInterview.php3
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-272715.html- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3its hardly spitefull, its about the customers. As an enterprise Oracle customer this is exactly what is needed. Although I suspect the number of people on digg that deal with Oracle ecommerce is slim to one...
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rip of the hat, wag of the finger
- dbalaski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm My speculation
I think this was a partitial retalitory move on Oracle's Part against RH.
Previously, Oracle was looking at RH & SUSE. But then RH bought JBOSS, which put RH in direct competed with Oracle on the Application Server Market (rumour had it they snatched JBOSS from oracle)... So I think that is the motivation... And Oracle has the resources to make this happen.
Oracle is pretty great about supporting their product line (I can say this from my 11+ years experience as an orace dba) . And having control of both the OS, Database & Application server is a bold move -- maken them the a major force to deal with. Plus Oracle's reputation (not including their preditory sales princing group) will give Linux an even bigger boost. - thripper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.html?pageregion=ocom_hp_a_main_1_Linux_102506
"Today, Oracle Database is #1 on Linux with more than 80% market share"
Is it ? I thought it was postgresql or smth.- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can only assume he meant commercial databases, which isn't saying much since Oracle's the number 1 database on any UNIX-like platform
- knobenheimer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0This is ridiculous, Larry Ellison is a pile of *****.
- klept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Agreed
Thank God it wasnt Ubuntu. Some friends and I recently changed from other distros to Ubuntu.
- klept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Agreed
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm no fan of Larry Ellison but it does make sense. *If* Oracle can actually deliver and provide comparable support for less, why not? Why should Red Hat make all the money? I don't understand the objections from the Open Source community. Aren't they the one's constantly reminding us that competition is a "good thing"?
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no problem. Oracle isn't the only server that runs on Linux. They will either improve the code base or disappear. All good really.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0(deleted)
- raynevandunem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Question: is it only server or big enterprise companies who are taking any interest in Linux distributors? Sun being interested in Canonical/Ubuntu, IBM being interested in Novell/SuSE, and now Oracle being interested (OK, maybe interested isn't the right word for this situation) in Red Hat.
Is it because of Unix/Unix-like systems being traditionally associated with, and thus attracting, those types of companies? That's constantly being pointed out (Linux being good only for servers), but the pro-DesktopLinux continues to butt against this suggestion, citing Apple's Mac OS X as an outstanding example of Unix desktop (even though Unix barely features in any advertising for Apple's line of computers).
I'm just wondering, since surely there should've been some major, widely-publicized inroads for DesktopLinux every year we heard about how this year will be the "year of Linux on the Desktop".
Are the Linux distributions just attracting unintended denizens like Oracle, or is it something inherent about Linux itself?
Or maybe they're talking about the corporate desktop, and not the home desktop which matters to the rest of us?- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Linux attracts a wide variety of companies. I'd say the server market may not even be the most important one now. Look at the vast and increasing array of embedded Linux products out there. The desktop will always be the most difficult to crack because in most other fields people are more techy and care only about costs and performance in which Linux can live with its rivals any day of the week.
On the desktop market its more about marketing, mind share etc. Most people aren't techies and can't see the wood from the trees in the industry so it will be a much more difficult area to crack. It's also why, out of all tech areas, the desktop market probably has the weakest choice of products in terms of performance. No one would accept spyware, bloat or constant exploits in more techy markets so no one would go near windows.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Linux attracts a wide variety of companies. I'd say the server market may not even be the most important one now. Look at the vast and increasing array of embedded Linux products out there. The desktop will always be the most difficult to crack because in most other fields people are more techy and care only about costs and performance in which Linux can live with its rivals any day of the week.
- carniv0re, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"By doing this, Oracle not only wounds Red Hat, it serves notice to all the Linux businesses -- Novell, Mandriva, Linspire, etc. -- that a giant company can come along, and sweep their work and business plan away from them in a minute."
Uhh, call that the "weakness" of the open source system? Besides which a large company could always do this. Heck, Microsoft could do it. I don't see that aspect of the argument.
Don't get me wrong, Oracle may be bad at it because of their own spotty track record of bug fixing, but really some of those arguments are bogus. It is business after all, people aren't doing it for charity. - fleabag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Uhh, call that the "weakness" of the open source system? Besides which a large company could always do this. Heck, Microsoft could do it. I don't see that aspect of the argument.
What? Don't you mean that this is a totally viable option being a publicly traded company? - stox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This could come back on bite Oracle. I can see Red Hat starting a group to push Postgresql real hard. If they can last long enough, Red Hat could undercut Oracle far more than Oracle can undercut Red Hat.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In this sort of fight, the larger company; the one with the broader product and revenue base, usually has somewhat of an advantage. For example, Oracle can afford to make nothing (zip,zero,nada) on operating system support and still remain profitable. If Red Hat makes nothing on operating system support, they're not doing so well.
Maybe Red Hat can start promoting and supporting PostgreSQL but competition exists there as well (EnterpriseDB) and it lacks the corporate presence and large application base that Oracle has to offer. Oracle has counter options here as well. For example, maybe they can start promoting and supporting Open Solaris.
Yes, Larry Ellison is a card carrying a-hole but he's a smart a-hole and I wouldn't bet against him in this fight.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In this sort of fight, the larger company; the one with the broader product and revenue base, usually has somewhat of an advantage. For example, Oracle can afford to make nothing (zip,zero,nada) on operating system support and still remain profitable. If Red Hat makes nothing on operating system support, they're not doing so well.
- rivershadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's just hope that Oracle supports RedHat better than they support their core product set. Anyone ever open a case for Oracle database products? Very similar to "cat problem.txt > /dev/null"
- dsn0wman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We are averaging about 2 weeks to resolution on our Oracle cases. I am sure we wont be buying OS support from them any time soon.
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"That reminds me, Oracle states that it'll distribute Unbreakable Linux binaries, but doesn't mention distributing the source code. I wonder if the company fully realizes that it'll have to provide it to every one who asks for it? Even if all Oracle did was remove Red Hat's trademarks, it would still have be obligated to supply all the code"
Ummm correct me if I am wrong, but is this not FUD? My understanding of the GPL is that they only have to give the source code they distribute the binaries to who ask for it. So I cannot walk in off the street demaning the source code, but I have to have been given their binaries by them.
Of course if they played nicely they would release the source code to all and sundry, but thats not the point here.- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes but whats the bets an OSS interest group buys their product then demands source and releases it to all.
- Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I personally don't see this as a big deal. First, it just means that Oracle can sell their products pre-configured complete with OS and officially support the entire package. Second, it's not as if Oracle is going to supply or support RedHat's other technologies (JBoss, Idntity Server, GFS, etc.), and in buying into Oracle you loose hardware and software compatibility certification (which some people really want).
More to the point, though, is that Oracle is not particularly knowledgable about Linux. They don't really have the infrastructure for doing it like RedHat, and they lack the experience. If you add to that Oracle's reputation for second-rate non-database applications, poor documentation, and lackluster support and you've got yourself a dog just waiting to bark.
Even without that, though, there's plenty of room for another big player in Linux support, ask IBM and Novell about that.
Ellison is talking out of his tail in his announcement. Oracle offers indemnification, but so does RedHat, HP, IBM, etc. as if it mattered -- the SCO case is no longer relevent and if anything has vetted Linux as free-and-clear of IP issues. Oracle plans to offer back-ports of patches -- something RedHat and others also provide (for products going back years), and even if Oracle did come up with a novel patch, they'd have to provide it to RedHat.
Actually, it sounds to me like a good excuse to purchase RedHat stock. - Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Free Fish all around
Oracle will have to work hard to offer better Oracle support than Red Hat might just introduce . . .
Who is stopping a "better Ubuntu than Ubuntu"?
Tux has always been a suit. But like beer. crying in it does not add to free beer.
There is room and fish for everyone. - barnski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6088896.stm
- chrishaney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2New screenshots released:
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/?q=node/20 - GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google ad for "Oracle Unbreakable Linux... Enterprise Linux Support..." found on Digg: http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.html?SC=NA07060042C0.GCM.7011.Linux.digg+com.st
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I looks like lots of people writing about corporate tech are dinosaurs, psychologically stuck in 1992 and fundamentally unable to grasp the idea of free software.
Nobody is stealing anything from anyone.
Red Hat specifically stipulated that anyone who wants to, can take, modify and redistribute some of their code.
If Oracle do that, or I do that, or the reader does that, there is no problem. You sell your support and developer skills as a commodity (something fundamental to open source software) - if you do it well you succeed, if you do it incompetently, lazily or at extortionate prices, you will fail. If you try to screw your customers, you will fail. If you try to impose lockin, you will fail.
Everyone's a winner.
There is no problem. This is what the GPL is, this is what it does. - jaelee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Red hat has nothing to fear since Oracle released a broken OS...
http://ultramookie.com/wayback/2006/10/26/uncompatible-linux/
And the kernel has a different version than RHEL4.
Can anyone say "fork"?- naxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm definitely seeing a fork in the near future, unless, of course, Red Hat takes the fixes by Oracle and reapplying them to their kernel.
- samuella, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0I think the information is not true!
http://sooslic.com/?id=1
http://www.alltelpavilionvip.com
http://sunayana2007.org/sponsorshipntrade_audiovis ...
http://dasrheingoldforkids.com/author.html
http://www.yara-online.org
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 