Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support 221
PCM2 writes "It's not Oracle Linux, but Larry Ellison has announced that Oracle will be providing full enterprise support for Linux. This means not just phone calls but also patches, security fixes, and backports, in addition to indemnification from lawsuits like SCO's. This puts Oracle in direct competition with its erstwhile partner, Red Hat, whose entire business is based on providing similar support for its Linux distro and related software."
The Linux OS (Score:5, Informative)
That should have said "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and 4". They're not supporting every GNU/Linux distribution, nor are they supporting just the kernel.
Remember, there is no such thing as the Linux operating system. Linux is just the kernel, and the various distributions based on it are all different.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
All a RedHat client has to do to move to Oracle support for their RedHat install is to stop using RedHat's update servers and start using Oracle's. Oracle will provide patches, and will backport those patches to earlier revisions than RedHat does in order to keep enterprise-level clients from having to upgrade all of their systems too often.
So, as it stands now, Oracle will basically be offering a higher level of support than RedHat for the same exact software for a lot less money. RedHat is going to be forced to drastically reduce their prices just to compete.
I would think that over the longterm Oracle's Unbreakable Linux will fork off, especially if this ends up seriously damaging RedHat, but for now Unbreakable Linux is nothing more than a re-branded copy of RedHat.
Re:Trademark infringment? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yep: [infoworld.com]
RH Response (Score:5, Informative)
Oracle better at linux?? (Score:2, Informative)
But remember that CentOS already provides bug fixes and updates for free, so the part about being cheaper is basically irrelevant -- anybody who cares about cost can already get basic support for free with CentOS.
Also remember any good changes Oracle comes up with must be GPL'ed, so Red Hat can pick them up immediately and use them as appropriate. (this is a good thing in both directions!)
So we're really talking here about extended support -- complex problems where you have to pay somebody to care about your twisted problem and help you figure it out in detail.
My experience with both companies is that you have to pay big $$$$ to get anybody to personally care about you in any way -- even a hundred Red Hat licenses don't amount to squat in getting somebody personally involved to help solve your problem, and I have no idea what level of $$$$ you have to pay to get somebody from Oracle to care (at least metalink makes no claims to care about you).
So I rate both companies about equally poor in serving my mid-sized company when complex problems arise.
In terms of interactions we do have, Red Hat seems generally earnest and honest, while Oracle seems arrogant and greedy. We get shaken down by Oracle once per year -- basically the sales guy shows up once a year with a baseball bat aimed at your kneecaps, asks how much you can afford to pay, and then invents some ridiculously large number that we now have to pay.
So the background summary is nobody can do complex support cheap, and in general attitude I prefer Red Hat.
The particular question that comes up here, though, is why would anybody believe Oracle has any specific expertise to support linux at any complex advanced level? This is a hard thing, and Oracle has no demonstrated competence at it... who would bet an enterprise production server on that?
Red Hat has built up its reputation and competence over a dozen years, and devotes 100% of its energies to doing linux well. Oracle has an egomaniac leader whose company has developed exactly one good product (not counting recent acquisitions) and who claims without proof a world class expertise in supporting linux, a task he claims is trivial and therefore clearly does not understand.
Oracle has a long trail of failed initiatives behind it, and this smacks of another -- dabbling in a field where it claims expertise but truly has none.
What big company is going to place a critical bet based solely on Oracle's reputation in a field where Oracle has no expertise? Anybody sensible is going to wait a couple years and see if Oracle can pull this off.
The people trashing Red Hat's stock right now are forgetting that this is a hard business, and Oracle is just a dilettante.
There is nothing magic about Red Hat that makes them a market leader -- the company has simply put in the hard work over the years and developed the expertise and critical mass to be the leading commercial linux distribution and support company. Oracle is not going to out-do Red Hat on any of those points because it's not their core business and never will be.
I predict utter failure for Unbreakable Linux beyond the Oracle software stack -- after a couple years of dismal sales (hello Novell) Oracle will end up supporting linux internally as part of its own bundled software stack.
I can't think of a single reason why anybody outside the Oracle stack would go with Oracle linux over a combination of CentOS (price) and Red Hat (expertise).