Yeah, right, I agree with ... err... Oracle. No, wait, something's wrong...
The problem is they are both wrong. There are more than two options.
Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
81–90 of 142 posts
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#82HAHA. Oracle clapping back at IBM.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oracle does maintain Solaris, which would seem to me to entail a much larger support burden than Red Hat's stewardship of their enterprise Linux distribution. Oracle also ships a few Linux userspace utilities outside of the main yum repos; the btrfs utilities come to mind. There really isn't any obvious btrfs performance need within Oracle or its products, which runs contrary to the spirit of your observations; in fa…
> Oracle does maintain Solaris, which would seem to me to entail a much larger support burden than Red Hat's stewardship of their enterprise Linux distribution. This seems like a non-sequitur in a conversation about open-source OSes.
I do not understand how, as Solaris was open previous to Oracle's acquisition.
Red Hat does not maintain all of the code in RHEL - they repackage and patch everything taken from other developers. Very few packages are authored solely by them.
I don't know what relationship Oracle has with the current owner of the UNIX System V source (appears to be The Open Group), but Oracle is responsible for vastly more of the kernel and userspace in Solaris than RHEL.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#84I'd really like to know the ratio of systems that are running RHEL vs the clones. 10:1? 100:1? 1000:1?
The fear would be that stomping out 90 or 99 (or 99.9%) of your actual user base (even if they are non-paying) would you over.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#85This is one of those uncomfortable situations where you find yourself on the same side as the devil.
Worse, I find myself applauding the devil for their championing Open Source ! This is Oracle ! The lawnmower[0]! The company that killed OpenSolaris! What mad world is this!? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=33m
What I love most about the lawn mower analogy (which I apply to any company) is that sometimes it can also be useful.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oracle does maintain Solaris, which would seem to me to entail a much larger support burden than Red Hat's stewardship of their enterprise Linux distribution. This seems like a non-sequitur in a conversation about open-source OSes.
I do not understand how, as Solaris was open previous to Oracle's acquisition. Red Hat does not maintain all of the code in RHEL - they repackage and patch everything taken from other developers. Very few packages are authored solely by them. I don't know what relationship Oracle has with the current owner of the UNIX System V source (appears to be The Open Group), but Oracle is responsible for vastly more of the ker…
> Red Hat does not maintain all of the code in RHEL - they repackage and patch everything taken from other developers.
This is false. Red Hat does maintain code that is shipped by default with RHEL. It should be noted though, the number of packages that are part of default RHEL installation is small. Also upstream first policy basically means, any proposed patch must first be merged in upstream before being backported to rhel. If that does not make them maintainers, I don't know what will. Being sole author and maintainer are not the same thing.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#87Wow, to continue calling Red Hat IBM is a very passive aggressive move that I expect on message boards, not from corporate blogs. Interesting. ;D
The leadership of Red Hat could have avoided this issue by not selling to IBM. Oh well. Seems like a silly thing to stan for Red Hat over.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
How Oracle handles Java (business-wise, not in technological terms) is one of the things that tells me that Oracle is still the toxic company it's always been.
They also buried a call home into the VBox Guest Extensions and eventually started sending legal demands to companies as well. Because while VBox was open license, the VBox Guest Extensions have a non-commercial use license by default but that doesn't stop VBox from asking you to install them innocently on the first run. Also 3 years ago, the guy in charge of a Oracle database we had (now migrated to MSSQL) accidenta…
Assuming that you are using the Standard Edition/2 of the database, this is licensed at $17,500/core. On x86, there is a 2-for-1 core discount.
If you download Enterprise Edition and use it to perform an upgrade from your SE2 database, then you will then be on the hook for the full $47,500/core.
There are two ways to undo this license change. a) Run "catdwgrd.sql" to get back to the SE2 release, then upgrade again with the correct license, or b) unload all of the data in the database (via exp/imp or data pump), then load it into a new database that is created with the correct license.
Staying on an EE database will certainly place you on the new pricing tier.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#89Do they seriously not hear themselves?
Oracle, free software champions of the world.
It is clearly the End Times.
Re: Keep Linux Open and Free–We Can’t Afford Not To
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe let’s not confuse Oracle undermining their competitor’s moat with their genuinely being on the side of the community. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (Oracle) is better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons (IBM).
True, but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that the company should be praised for it.
This. It's more like a happy accident. If Oracle had a stated principle which was virtuous, and did something to specifically to uphold that principle when anyone else might have done something else, that would be something you thank them for. And this is not that.
However there is also another idea that I think is valid, which is "reward the behavior you want to see". Whyever they did it, if it's good, you let them know that you want that and you don't burn them the one time they do something you always say you want.
I still don't thank them though. There is no reasonable hope of ever influencing Oracle to become something 100% the opposite of what they are at their very core. So F them. I see no point in worrying about failing to reward the behavior you want to see in this case. You will never get the behavior you really want out of Oracle, and so all you would be doing is letting them influence you, not you influencing them.