Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat - Aix

This is a discussion on Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat - Aix ; "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution — Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code base. In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief corporate architect said Oracle ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat

  1. Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat


    "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
    Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    base.

    In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief
    corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
    a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
    Linux distribution — his rival’s code base."

    [...]

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393

    -RFH


  2. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 7, 8:27*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
    > Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    > base.
    >
    > In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief
    > corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
    > a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
    > Linux distribution — his rival’s code base."
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393
    >
    > -RFH


    Or maybe this is a way of saying Oracle bit-off (pun) more than it
    chew. One way to improve relations with Red Hat is to give them
    credit for the OS and to provide strong support for Oracle on Linux
    including the Linux pieces for a fee.

    IMHO -- Mark D Powell --





  3. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell wrote:
    > On May 7, 8:27 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
    > > Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    > > base.

    >
    > > In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief
    > > corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
    > > a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
    > > Linux distribution — his rival’s code base."

    >
    > > [...]

    >
    > >http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393

    >
    > > -RFH

    >
    > Or maybe this is a way of saying Oracle bit-off (pun) more than it
    > chew. One way to improve relations with Red Hat is to give them
    > credit for the OS and to provide strong support for Oracle on Linux
    > including the Linux pieces for a fee.
    >
    > IMHO -- Mark D Powell --



    Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
    OS.

    - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
    - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
    - One Solaris
    - One AIX
    - One HP-UX
    - One Windows

    and, last but not least:

    - One Linux distribution

    Why should Linux be different?

    -Ramon



  4. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
    > OS.
    >
    > - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
    > - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
    > - One Solaris
    > - One AIX
    > - One HP-UX
    > - One Windows
    >
    > and, last but not least:
    >
    > - One Linux distribution
    >
    > Why should Linux be different?


    Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    distributions are out there?

    Michael

  5. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat

    Michael Schmarck schrieb:

    > Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    > distributions are out there?



    Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)



    Rainer

  6. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    Rainer Duffner wrote:

    > Michael Schmarck schrieb:
    >
    >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    >> distributions are out there?

    >
    > Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)


    Yes, wasn't it?

    But even with Solaris it makes sense that Oracle only supports Solaris.
    After all, only Solaris 10 (or 11, when it comes out) is the /official/
    Solaris.

    That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
    official Linux there is.

    Michael

  7. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 1:49 am, Michael Schmarck
    wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > > Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
    > > OS.

    >
    > > - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
    > > - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
    > > - One Solaris
    > > - One AIX
    > > - One HP-UX
    > > - One Windows

    >
    > > and, last but not least:

    >
    > > - One Linux distribution

    >
    > > Why should Linux be different?

    >
    > Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    > distributions are out there?
    >
    > Michael


    There are many Windows versions/distributions, you know that.

    Linux may be different in a sense, but that doesn't mean that Oracle
    should support multiple distributions (*). That would be simply
    insane.
    I just hacked a new distro, it is called "Ramonux", it contains lots
    of spiffy kernel innovations. Should I call Oracle to demand that they
    support it?

    Anyone who can't/won't spring several hundred dollars for the official
    supported distribution by Oracle (RedHat Enterprise Edition) should
    be banished from using Oracle.

    -Ramon

    (*) and by "multiple" I mean the strict: "more than one".


  8. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On Wed, 07 May 2008 17:27:33 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution - Red
    > Hat - and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code base.


    Thus showing that the Oracle chief architect in question doesn't
    understand Linux at all.

    Linux is NOT a PC operating system.

    How the hell am I supposed to run RedHat embedded on a micro-controller?

    I love when "experts" are idiots.

    --
    "Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"


  9. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 6:22 am, Michael Schmarck
    wrote:
    > Rainer Duffner wrote:
    > > Michael Schmarck schrieb:

    >
    > >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    > >> distributions are out there?

    >
    > > Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)

    >
    > Yes, wasn't it?
    >
    > But even with Solaris it makes sense that Oracle only supports Solaris.
    > After all, only Solaris 10 (or 11, when it comes out) is the /official/
    > Solaris.
    >
    > That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
    > official Linux there is.
    >
    > Michael



    > That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
    > official Linux there is.


    You are obviously a Linux desktop user and have no idea about
    administering
    corporate servers.

    Oracle never said that RedHat is the only "official Linux". Oracle
    only runs on "Enterprise Linux" -a category very different from
    "Linux".

    What Oracle wants to say is:

    (1) Oracle is in the server business
    (2) Oracle db only runs on "Enterprise Linux"
    (3) Our official enterprise Linux is RedHat

    The mistake many of you (I have really clarified this more often
    that I can count) are making is trying to be at level (3) when
    you don't even reach level (1).

    -Ramon


  10. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    > On Wed, 07 May 2008 17:27:33 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution - Red
    > > Hat - and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code base.

    >



    > Thus showing that the Oracle chief architect in question doesn't
    > understand Linux at all.




    He doesn't have to understand it. He has chosen not to understand it.

    Oracle Corporation is in the:

    "Corporate Server Business".

    The Oracle DB and most other apps do not run on "Linux". They run on
    an "Enterprise Linux".

    There is a huge difference.

    The fact that you can hack your iPhone and run some Linux derivative
    on it is inconsequential to Oracle.

    -Ramon


  11. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 7, 5:36*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 7, 8:27 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > > > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
    > > > Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    > > > base.

    >
    > > > In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief
    > > > corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
    > > > a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
    > > > Linux distribution — his rival’s code base."

    >
    > > > [...]

    >
    > > >http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393

    >
    > > > -RFH

    >
    > > Or maybe this is a way of saying Oracle bit-off (pun) more than it
    > > chew. *One way to improve relations with Red Hat is to give them
    > > credit for the OS and to provide strong support for Oracle on Linux
    > > including the Linux pieces for a fee.

    >
    > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

    >
    > Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
    > OS.
    >
    > - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
    > - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
    > - One Solaris
    > - One AIX
    > - One HP-UX
    > - One Windows
    >
    > and, last but not least:
    >
    > - One Linux distribution
    >
    > Why should Linux be different?
    >
    > -Ramon-


    Because it's a mess the way things are done now. Oracle should put
    together a distribution that works out of the box.

    Part of the problem with linux/oracle is it still requires a lot of
    configuration that can be screwed up. Most of this could be easily
    fixed with simple automatic, text-driven (so easily maintainable when
    there are new possibilities) scripts. I say, "fork Redhat. And it's
    mama, too."

    Not that I use it, I gave up on linux years ago, after being quite the
    supporter. Funny, it has evolved, but I haven't.
    Ten years ago I was predicting shrink-wrapped oracle/linux apps within
    a couple of years. I was wrong.
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....920d2ada0ef8fa
    I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    running on toy hardware, and RAC on it is a ridiculous complication
    that has the effect of making poor hardware less reliable. Did I say
    that out loud?

    And in your other post where you said "Oracle servers are dedicated,
    high performance, expensive computers inside a server room. If you
    want to keep your cooking recipes in a database, use something else."
    What do you make of XE? I just yesterday implemented one as a remote
    production server, so I can push data out without worrying about lots
    of things like strange places accessing my dedicated etc. computer
    inside a server room. And when you work for a pharmaceutical
    manufacturer, cooking recipes are more critical than you might think.

    Please don't crosspost between cdo.server and cdo.misc.

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    "Did you really think it would be that easy??"

  12. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:


    > I love when "experts" are idiots.



    And I love it when idiots are "experts". :-)

    (sorry, it was too easy)

    Now seriously: A computer running Oracle is by definition a dedicated
    server. It needs a special kernel, among other things. You shouldn't
    run anything else on it.

    -Ramon


  13. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:46:45 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >> On Wed, 07 May 2008 17:27:33 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution -
    >> > Red Hat - and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    >> > base.

    >
    > > Thus showing that the Oracle chief architect in question doesn't
    > > understand Linux at all.

    >
    > He doesn't have to understand it. He has chosen not to understand it.
    >
    > Oracle Corporation is in the:
    >
    > "Corporate Server Business".
    >
    > The Oracle DB and most other apps do not run on "Linux". They run on an
    > "Enterprise Linux".
    >
    > There is a huge difference.
    >
    > The fact that you can hack your iPhone and run some Linux derivative on
    > it is inconsequential to Oracle.


    Uh... Lucent/Avaya phone switches run Linux embedded on many of their
    components.

    Since I'm reading this in a Sun group... RedHat does not run on a Sparc
    station... but other distros do.

    RedHat does not run on PPC... but other distros do.

    This has nothing to do with a hack of an insignificant toy.

    --
    "Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"


  14. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:55:36 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >
    >> I love when "experts" are idiots.

    >
    > And I love it when idiots are "experts". :-)
    >
    > (sorry, it was too easy)


    Though completely meaningless.

    > Now seriously: A computer running Oracle is by definition a dedicated
    > server. It needs a special kernel, among other things. You shouldn't run
    > anything else on it.


    Proving further that the Oracle "expert" doesn't know what he's talking
    about.

    --
    "Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"


  15. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    joel garry wrote:

    >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >running on toy hardware,


    Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    Idiot.


  16. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv wrote:
    > joel garry wrote:
    > >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    > >running on toy hardware,

    >
    > Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
    >
    > Idiot.



    Just for the sake of argument...

    Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.

    They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.

    They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization
    (RedHat, HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99%
    of distros out.

    I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.

    -Ramon


  17. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv wrote:
    >> joel garry wrote:
    >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >> >running on toy hardware,

    >>
    >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    >> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
    >>
    >> Idiot.

    >
    > Just for the sake of argument...
    >
    > Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.
    >
    > They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.
    >
    > They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization (RedHat,
    > HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99% of distros
    > out.


    My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
    good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
    BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
    distribution manufacturer.

    > I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    > Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.


    ....or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world
    apparently.

    Linux is NOT a PC operating system.

    --
    "Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"


  18. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 1:21 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv wrote:
    > >> joel garry wrote:
    > >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    > >> >running on toy hardware,

    >
    > >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > >> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >
    > >> Idiot.

    >
    > > Just for the sake of argument...

    >
    > > Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.

    >
    > > They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.

    >
    > > They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization (RedHat,
    > > HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99% of distros
    > > out.

    >
    > My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
    > good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
    > BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
    > distribution manufacturer.
    >
    > > I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    > > Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.

    >


    > ...or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world

    apparently.

    For the purposes of this thread, I don't.

    If you want to discuss desktop, you are invited to join another thread
    of yours truly:

    "Apple should Acquire Sun"

    in the Solaris NG.

    BTW: There are at least two widely used OSS packages in which yours
    truly is mentioned in the contributors and thanks sections.

    > Linux is NOT a PC operating system.


    ....and Oracle is not a PC product or company.

    -RFH


  19. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:53:03 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On May 8, 1:21 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> > On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv wrote:
    >> >> joel garry wrote:
    >> >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >> >> >running on toy hardware,

    >>
    >> >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations
    >> >> use and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >>
    >> >> Idiot.

    >>
    >> > Just for the sake of argument...

    >>
    >> > Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.

    >>
    >> > They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.

    >>
    >> > They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization
    >> > (RedHat, HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99%
    >> > of distros out.

    >>
    >> My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
    >> good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
    >> BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
    >> distribution manufacturer.
    >>
    >> > I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    >> > Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.

    >>
    > > ...or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world

    > apparently.
    >
    > For the purposes of this thread, I don't.
    >
    > If you want to discuss desktop, you are invited to join another thread
    > of yours truly:
    >
    > "Apple should Acquire Sun"
    >
    > in the Solaris NG.


    ....at what point was I talking about desktop? If anything I've been
    talking about anything but.

    > BTW: There are at least two widely used OSS packages in which yours
    > truly is mentioned in the contributors and thanks sections.
    >
    >> Linux is NOT a PC operating system.

    >
    > ...and Oracle is not a PC product or company.


    ....and Oracle choosing a distro that they will support is perfectly
    acceptable... despite the fact that even they use a kernel branched off of
    RedHat. For that to get mixed up in the "there should only be one Linux
    disto" argument, as this has, is ignorant.

    --
    "Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"


  20. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    In comp.unix.aix chrisv wrote:
    > joel garry wrote:
    >
    >>I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >>running on toy hardware,

    >
    > Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".


    google does run toy hardware. I've seen more than enough of it at
    datacenters.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast