Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support

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."

RMS exonerated?

[CoughDropAddict]

RMS always argued that free software is pro-capitalist, because there is a free market for support. I think it's great that we're seeing this argument validated with real-life examples.

Yes, there are several vendors who support their own distro of Linux, but are there previous instances where a third party (Oracle) is competing with a vendor who itself does support (RedHat)?

Re:Yes yes, this whole debate again...

[RAMMS+EIN]

``Where do you draw the line?''

If you're talking about a specific distribution (which is often the case), use the name of the distribution. If you're talking about the kernel, say "the kernel" or "the Linux kernel", and if you're talking about GNU/Linux systems in general, say "GNU/Linux", to avoid ambiguity.

``Linux distribution is a well accepted term and the practice of shortening it to Linux is well accepted.''

I agree, and I accept that usage, but, in this case, Oracle is supporting a single distro, not Linux in general. Saying that they support Linux is, at best, unclear, and I would say false.

``Without the GNU toolset (or one like it), the kernel would be essentially useless.''

I suppose you mean to suggest that we shouldn't be saying "GNU/Linux". However, I've built and seen systems based on Linux that didn't include GNU software, as well as systems that included GNU software, but not Linux. I can tell you that much of the identity of GNU/Linux comes from the GNU part, not the Linux part. That's why I prefer to use the combined term.

``If a desktop system, at least X, and generally Gnome or KDE is needed, so do you have to say Gnome/X/GNU/Linux in that case? If it's a particular config of a web server do you have to say Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux?''

I am not about to declare that everyone _has_ to call it a certain way, but I do like people to be clear, precise, and truthful. Konqueror is part of KDE, not Linux. Firefox runs on top of GTK, not necessarily Linux or even X. glibc is part of the GNU system, and works with various kernels besides Linux. Drivers for Linux won't work with AIX, no matter how many GNU utilities, X servers, and GNOME's you install.

In cases where it's relevant, it may make a lot of sense to describe a system as Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux, although the various components probably matter to different people. As a webmaster, I probably care about Postresql and PHP, and perhaps Apache, but not about GNU and Linux. As the sysadmin, I probably care about all of them.

Re:I'm confused...

[saleenS281]

Sounds to me like they're trying to smoke Redhat out. Undercut their pricing until they have to drop their own pricing to the point they no longer make money. Then it's simply a matter of purchasing Redhat at the new low low discount price.

Re:I'm confused...

[PMoonlite]

what exactly does oracle get by buying red hat?

really. think about it.

i should say; what does oracle get by buying red hat that would still be worth anything after the purchase? after the employees flee their proprietary overlords and the red hat brand has been subsumed in the giant sucking sound of oracle's corporate engine?

the death or purchase (same thing, really) of red hat does not benefit oracle in any way. and it's going to be interesting to see if oracle can actually deliver linux support that anyone wants, even if it is cheaper. compare the customer satisfaction for the two companies and make up your own mind.

Re:Yay.

[WindBourne]

Wrong. Oracle runs faster on Linux than Windows. And it will get faster still. The problem is that as soon as Oracle tweaks to the MS kernel, MS intrduces tweaks designed to slow Oracle. This approach is how they treat all of their competitors. The nice thing is that if Oracle sticks this out and works with redhat, ibm, sgi, etc, more software companies will port to Linux due to neutrality.

Re:It turns out my information was outdated.

[CastrTroy]

Your also forgetting the cost of the CALs on windows. Along with the cost of the database. Redhat includes a database (actually 2, postgres and mysql), Windows server does not include a database. There's also a lot of nice compilers and development environments that you get included when you buy Linux. With windows, none of this is included. With MS, you pretty much get a bare OS, and don't even get unlimited connections. With Linux, you get a tonne of applications, with no artificial limits on the number of connections.

Re:first step towards buying red hat?

[dcavanaugh]

Let's see if Oracle REALLY undercuts Red Hat support prices. I have yet to see Oracle undercut ANYONE on the price of ANYTHING. They would be well advised to properly support their own products first. I've had my fair share of offshore disappointment with Oracle support -- not anxious to repeat the experience. Then again, I suppose anyone can serve patches. Hell, I run Centos at home. There is nothing going on with Oracle vs. Red Hat that Centos isn't doing already (on a smaller scale, of course).

Meanwhile, a competitive market might actually help Red Hat. Lower prices would increase Red Hat's volume, even if some of the sales went to Oracle. The trick is to figure out the optimum price that maximizes total revenue. I suspect that magic price is somewhere south of Red Hat's current pricing. Oracle might accidentally help Red Hat find a richer price point.

For many other reasons, you are correct. Buying Red Hat means Larry gets JBOSS, which he wanted to buy before. And Oracle becomes the top Linux company overnight. That won't happen if players like Red Hat are still on the playing field. Otherwise, "Unbreakable Linux" is simply the latest Red Hat knockoff. Besides, growth via acquisition is Larry's game. Very rarely does Oracle crank up a new line of business on their own.

Re:Playing devils advocate.

[clymere]

And of all of that is terrific, but none of it is supported by the vendor. You can call RH with your MySQL or PostGreSQL problems, as the primary thing they are selling you is support and updates. You can't call MS, you can scarcely get support form them on the features included in the OS without shelling out extra $$$.

If support and updates are unimportant to you and you're willing to run things like Cygwin and Apache on your Windows server to avoid paying for Red Hat, its a lot more likely you're just going to run a free as in beer linux distribution which provides the same tools with no support.

Consider the target market.

[billybob_jcv]

We aren't a full linux shop - we are a typical midmarket corp IT shop - running Oracle eBusiness Suite, Oracle DBMS, Oracle App Server, along with a variety of apps backed by either Oracle DBMS or SQLServer. Our infrastructure is a mix of RH linux and MS 2003 Server. All the Oracle products are on RH linux, and we have been paying Oracle and RH for support.

So, now Larry is telling me I can stop paying RH for support, and I can pay Oracle. My cost will be about 1/3 what I'm paying now to RH. When I call for support on one of my Oracle apps, I don't have to worry about whether it is a bug in the app, the DBMS or the OS - the support call is the same and they need to help me figure it out.

Where's the downside for me? If you aren't currently an Oracle customer - fine, keep paying RHAT for support. If you are an Oracle customer, it's a no-brainer.
             

If it's anything like their app server...

[disciple3d]

...Then this will be a shocking wake up call to Oracle. Oracle don't do 'communities' and 'sharing' so well. Most of the best documentation on their products is inside Metalink, hidden away from the prying eyes of the less than 'enterprise' customers. I'm an Oracle DBA, and I think that Oracle Database is a fantastic product, which is ultra reliable, scalable and well thought out. Support is generally pretty good, and it damn well ought to be for $25,000 a CPU! Contrast that with Oracle Application Server which is a buggy, badly supported, badly thought out mesh of acquired code and Oracle 'improvements'. Since it's written in Java, it's quite easy to pull OC4J apart and look at the code if you so desire. We run an enterprise Java application on Oracle application server, and it is a _lot_ of trouble. Try it on AIX, with the IBM JDK. Even more fun to be had there :) The trouble is, Oracle don't know much about Linux really. They don't contribute much to it, and this move is really riding off the back of other people's work. It's more about taking back what Redhat took from them - a decent and popular application server product. Why were they so keen to get hold of Jboss? I think it's proberbly because their existing application server is so shocking... Oracle do some things well, but they don't do community support, sharing, or cheap products. If they truly are looking to take over Redhat, then that will be a sorry day for Linux. I think Oracle have bitten off more than they can chew. I'm sure you'll be able to get 24x7 enterprise support, but it will be offshore, and you'll have to speak to 6 people and an account manager, 6 more people, a customer services representative, fill out a survey and then finally produce a test case to prove that there is a bug in their product, which would be obvious if you could actually speak to a devloper who spent twenty seconds looking at the code. Even IBM do Linux better.