Oracle Linux? 250
eldavojohn writes "There have been rumors floating around of Oracle working on their own distribution of Linux. If this is true, it is widely believed that this enterprise edition of Linux would be in direct competition with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. What is spurring the rumors? Well, Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison said, 'I'd like to have a complete stack. We're missing an operating system. You could argue that it makes a lot of sense for us to look at distributing and supporting Linux.' I know that Oracle has been doing a lot more than databases recently, will they go the extra mile and create their own stripped down Linux kernel? If they do, will companies switch to database solutions that are running Oracle only software for the benefits of support and (hopefully) stability?"
Definitely has uses but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
All similar but different enough to drive an IT guy batty. Too much of a good thing?
Re:Definitely has uses but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle should stick to databases (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically I'm wondering why Oracle want to pinch consumers away from Fedora and Ubuntu instead of just working with them to help intergrate their databases more seamlessly into these distros?
This is a terrible idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it would be a subtle fork, but Oracle has enough trouble keeping track of it's DB. I don't think they clearly understand the headache involved in maintaining an operating system.
It won't really compete with RHEL (Score:4, Insightful)
Except as a platform to run Oracle on. Oracle doesn't really understand fairness or openness, in large part because its founder doesn't. I'm not saying that they can't figure it out - IBM, after all, went from the most closed of corporations to one of the main sources of energy into commercial open software - but I've always considered IBM to be kind of a special case anyway. Regardless, I have a hard time seeing the industry embrace an Oracle-controlled linux distribution.
It is possible that an acquisition of Novell could bring in enough fresh blood to turn this around... And it would bring in an already-respected Linux distribution.
On the other hand, it makes a whole lot of sense that Oracle would start shipping a Linux LiveCD that runs the Oracle installer, which can be a bitch to get running anyway, and upon which you can run Oracle if you install it to the hard disk. After some time they could switch it to be the only supported platform for Oracle. If you don't want to run it directly on the iron, run it in a virtual machine - although unless you're on ESX or something (whatever it's called now) that's probably going to come with a dramatic performance penalty.
Regardless, it only makes sense for Oracle to provide their own Linux. Why help Redhat? Redhat makes competing products.
Oracle Linux works better as a threat than reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, if Oracle tries to build their own distro, market it via their existing sales channels, and support it via their existing system, Oracle Linux will truly suck. The pricing will be outrageous, the sales process will be the "car dealership" model, and the support will be the offshore model that is not all that great. Oracle makes a great product, but they are their own worst enemy sometimes.
If I were Larry, I would create a great deal of hype about doing my own Linux distro, to soften up the price of Red Hat in anticpiation of a takeover.
Re:Definitely has uses but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The IT guy's main headache for a database server is going to be the interaction between the database and the OS. The issue is that the server is supposed to run best on a version of Red Hat with some weird extra things enabled. Red Hat doesn't entirely understand this stuff, because they don't use it for any other configurations. Oracle understands it (they wrote it), but they're not doing tech support for Red Hat. The OS is sufficiently different from a usual Linux box that the IT guy has no clue when things are breaking. When the company I was working for got one of these, it was further complicated because the hardware didn't come with anything set up, and came from a third vendor. So we got a machine from Dell, the OS from Red Hat, and the database program from Oracle, each shipped separately, and they couldn't be tested independantly.
I think it would make perfect sense for Oracle to distribute and support a Red Hat-derived Linux distribution exclusively for production servers. At least then there would be a vendor who would understand the thing.
Calling all zealots. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mind you, crusaders, that I am posting this from my Linux-enabled laptop.
Insert Disk - Go .... very cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Try a different approach. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd get your BIOS updates, OS updates and database updates from a single company that could afford to do the testing so the load on your IT department would be reduced.
You could even order it in a cluster configuration.
But what good is a database server on its own? With a bit more work, you'd be able to buy a webserver box (hardware, OS, Apache, etc) pre-configured to hook into the database server they sold you.
From Oracle's point of view, this would be a great way to get even more of the market and to stop any gains from MySQL or others.
From the corporations' point of view, this would be a great way to reduce IT costs by reducing the load on your internal IT department.
If Oracle does it right, they'd even be able to offer you dial-on-demand DBA services for their products. Why pay 6 figures to hire an Oracle DBA when you can pay 5 figures for a DBA service contract with Oracle?
Oracle Linux vs Red Hat... (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt it is terribly bad news for Red Hat. Even if Oracle create their own distro I doubt they would get away with ceasing to certifying their products for any other Linux distros. There are simply to many people with already established contractually sealed working relationships with SUSE and Red Hat. Of course Oracle will recommend the use of Oracle Linux® (can they even register that as a trade mark if it contains the word 'Linux'?) and all updates to Oracle products will appear for Oracle Linux® first and only 2-3 weeks later for SUSE, Red Hat etc. but that's about it.... unless Larry wants to piss off every last one of the sizable number of IT professionals world wide that haven't been assimilated into the Microsoft collective yet. Even if they do stop certifying Oracle products for anything but Oracle Linux® I doubt it would be much of a problem to get Oracle products working on un-certified Linux distros. It would simply take a bit of debugging and howto files for Oracle instalations on un-certified Linuxes are easy to find.
Re:OpenSolaris? (Score:2, Insightful)
Without total world domination, Larry Ellison can't become the richest man in the world, right?
One quasi-word: dtrace (Score:3, Insightful)
mail a CD with a desktop for mindshare (Score:3, Insightful)
Not buyin' it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is a buzzword. BSD is not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try a different approach. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just about every restaurant, self storage company, florist, doctors office, and goodness knows what else uses vertical software. And guess what? Odds are pretty good they bought the computer, cash drawer and what ever from the same place.
If technology isn't your business it makes a lot of sense to just buy a package and support so you can go about your job.
Just like buying a Tivo is a better solution for a lot of people that building a MythTV box.
I took me a long time to learn this but for most people a computer is just a thing they have to use to do their job.
Re:Definitely has uses but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This didn't happen by chance. But it meant that you could be reasonable certain no obscure kernel settings were incorrectly set (at least not by an oversight, didn't stop people setting the wrong settings when tuning).
At the time Oracle were talking with Hewlett Packard about a stripped down HP-UX to build "Oracle Servers" on PA-RISC. It made sense then, and it still makes sense, except HP-UX is no longer the "obvious choice" for an Oracle server.
To be honest, I think in the GNU/Linux world, it is choice of certified hardware that is probably as important, if not more so, for Oracle, than choice of distribution. Since I've been bitten by underdocumented, under tested, RAID hardware or Linux drivers for same (the effect is the same, no matter where the fault lies). If you are aiming for really high availability on an Oracle database, buying the solution as one stop from Oracle makes sense.
I doubt cost-wise it would be that competitive with DELL and Redhat, at least initially, but for some applications hardware cost is irrelevant compared to unplanned downtime.
Something like Debian, or Ubuntu, with long support periods, and completely freely redistributable base (with builtin rebranding -- "no Mozilla says you can't call it..." hazzles), is the obvious sort of base. Although presumably BSDs might be an option as well. Or Oracle might still want a big corporate backer for their distro variant.