Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oracle owns MySQL but not Terraform
Ah, so they meant avoiding 'downstream license complications' they don't cause .
I wouldn't expect Oracle to have a license complication with itself...
Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
51–60 of 191 posts
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially ironic, given that Oracle is one of the nastiest and most aggressive companies at enforcing license terms.
There is no contradiction here. It's exceedingly simple: companies will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. That's why it's important to raise the bar on what they have to give and reject all permissive (non-copyleft) free software licences.
Copyleft is not required, free software is a gift freely given. Even public domain is ok (weird places like Germany that don’t have public domain notwithstanding).
What must be rejected is nonfree licenses like the BSL.
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not Oracle who are using terraform, it is their customers. Terraform is the underline tech that powers the tooling suit that the customers use to manage their oracle cloud. It makes perfect sense for them to push their customers to move to the more permissive licensing to avoid any legal issues.
Only when it isn't legal issues that dump money into Oracle. They absolutely love and adore pushing their customers to less permissive licensing which can encounter legal issues when they are the ones benefiting
Yes, Oracle loves making money.
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's largely because a lot of Oracle DB products where performance mattered (eg. Exadata) needed some sort of a base OS that Oracle could manage and optimize as needed All that’s needed is update sysctl.conf to tune kernel parameters to the workload. Every Linux sysadmin knows how to do this. What kernel parameters need to be updated is heavily documented for any product.
Oracle has a long history of not documenting all of this stuff and instead suggesting you should hire one of their army of consultants to help tune the OS or Database for you.
If we are talking about tuning for a specific workload, what’s wrong with that?
If your in-house DBA doesn’t have the experience to perform the specific tuning required, then that’s what support contracts are for
The documentation can’t cover every customer’s use case and configuration. That’s just enabling folk to blindly copy inappropriate sysctls they don’t understand like they are building gentoo kernels.
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was wondering, once IBM got Hashicorp, if they would reverse the license change for Terraform. Not been that long since the announcement, so still hoping they will.
Has there ever been notable instances of company regretting and reversing license change of a major project?
Lerna, if that's major enough for you.
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#56Following IBM's acquisition of Hashicorp the moves seems unsurprising, they wouldn't want to be beholden to a competitor. We'll inevitably see others large companies follow suite - it was one thing when hashicorp was independent tech company but it's very different when it's owned by a direct competitor.
>they wouldn't want to be beholden to a competitor.
Which is ironic given that OEL is a direct rip-off of RHEL which IBM also now owns.
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Oracle Linux was a similar approach to let their customers use RedHat Linux without paying RedHat, now also IBM.
Oracle Linux has been a thing for decades. It's largely because a lot of Oracle DB products where performance mattered (eg. Exadata) needed some sort of a base OS that Oracle could manage and optimize as needed.
Didn't they buy one of these (Solaris)?
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#58A giant corporation like Oracle switching to the fork because they don’t want to engage commercially with Hashicorp is peak greedy.
Greedy? Why would you bet your product and customers on another company? If someday Hashicorp suddenly died so that nobody adds new features or fixes bugs, you can't do anything about it because their code isn't "open source" even though available, when a "true" open source project is just next door. Any big enough company will think about what is the safest approach to their product. (Of course, companies do go out…
Why would you bet your product and customers on another company?
Oh so you never heard of “suppliers”?
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no contradiction here. It's exceedingly simple: companies will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. That's why it's important to raise the bar on what they have to give and reject all permissive (non-copyleft) free software licences.
Copyleft is not required, free software is a gift freely given. Even public domain is ok (weird places like Germany that don’t have public domain notwithstanding). What must be rejected is nonfree licenses like the BSL.
> Copyleft is not required
Yes it is. Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can.
> free software is a gift freely given
It's a gift to the public, not to individuals and companies (like Oracle).
> Even public domain is ok
Even worse because that expressly allows companies (like Oracle) to take everything and give nothing.
Re: Oracle dumps Terraform for OpenTofu
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's largely because a lot of Oracle DB products where performance mattered (eg. Exadata) needed some sort of a base OS that Oracle could manage and optimize as needed All that’s needed is update sysctl.conf to tune kernel parameters to the workload. Every Linux sysadmin knows how to do this. What kernel parameters need to be updated is heavily documented for any product.
Having these pretuned AND having a dedicated support team doing the tuning for you is the killer app for some buyers, as it allowed Admins to concentrate on other work and also minimize management overhead for the Infra org. Spending $500k/yr on compute+support SLA is cheaper than $200k/yr on compute and hiring 3 admins dedicated to that piece of compute. This is the model that every Enterprise Infra vendor pushes (e…
MongoDB offers a preconfigured Linux to run on?
Or did you just mean Atlas?