5 ms·

Hi. Author here. I’m not a sockpuppet and genuinely have no affiliation with Oracle. It’s purely my own technical opinion. I only recently registered the site

by cylo 3y ago

Hi. Author here. I’m not a sockpuppet and genuinely have no affiliation with Oracle. It’s purely my own technical opinion. I only recently registered the site and set up the blog because I had nowhere else to post it and did not want to use a hosted platform like Medium. I was watching the recent Red Hat debacle from the sidelines and had some thoughts to put together about the general Enterprise Linux model.

ineedasername 3y ago
Okay, that's fair, but do you kind of see how a shiny new domain name & blog with exactly one post and an anonymous author saying you can trust them because they're not affiliated with Oracle... Can you see how that appeal for trust hasn't been built on firm ground?
- cylo 3y ago
  Sure, I suppose. I've never been called a sockpuppet before so I'm simultaneously insulted but also...honored in an odd way? Anyway, I'm not sure what else you'd have me do here. We all have to start somewhere. I put my thoughts out there under something I directly control and I'd rather people focus on the central thesis of the thoughts being proposed over resorting to personal attacks. I'll continue posting small essays on relevant topics under the domain.
  - ineedasername 3y ago
    I didn't mean to say you were wrong in what you chose to write, but also that it wasn't wrong for someone to be highly skeptical of its authenticity. Write what you want and people will take it as they will, I just wanted to point out that how the GP comment took it wasn't without some basis. As to the merits of your thesis, I'll outline my understanding of it & my thoughts in response: 1) You're proposing OEL as an alternative for RHEL (and other such offerings) 2) People might object to it based on Oracle's reputation (well deserved) 3) People should put that repulsion aside though because... 4) Oracle really is letting people use it for free so users don't have to enter into a $ relationship with this predatory company However: People choose RHEL (or any paid enterprise distro) primarily because of the support contracts that guarantee service. This undermines your appeal in #3 & #4 above because it requires the exact thing you're saying users can avoid to overcome their repulsion. Also, if enough people start using this distro then I have no doubt that Oracle will at some point switch things up and try to monetize that userbase under threat of crippling legal bills. I say all of this as someone who has actually been deposed by lawyers in a lawsuit with Oracle, where events leading up to the lawsuit were very much a bait-and-switch. I won't bog down this comment with the details but if you're interested in the exact nature of that bait & switch let me know and I'll comment in reply-- it may change your mind (or not) about trusting Oracle not to do something like that with OEL
- noizejoy 3y ago
  I didn’t see a particular appeal for trust in the OP. Not mentioning anything about non association would have seemed weirder. Sometimes it’s interesting to read or hear from someone with a high trust score. Other times it’s interesting to read or hear a line of reasoning without - or even negative - trust score. Only going by trust arguably is one of the fundamental problems with tribalism and echo chambers.
  - ineedasername 3y ago
    >I didn’t see a particular appeal for trust in the OP It's implicit within the statement that they don't have a conflict of interest. Trust is precisely what conflicts of interest are about, where their presence often (maybe not always) introduces the need to be more skeptical of the person's motives, i.e., less trust.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - ineedasername 3y ago
    You deleted your other comment replying to me, I'm not sure why-- there was nothing wrong with questioning how I initially chose to respond, so I'll paste what I was writing back to you on that topic here: Your original comment said 1) you didn't see an appeal for trust and 2) went on to make broader statements that trust isn't necessarily required when considering an opinion (on it's merits, independently of high/low trust, was my interpretation of what you wrote) #2 Does not modify #1 in a way that would prohibit fair treatment of #1 when considering it alone. #1 is a straightforward question about the content of the article. I didn't choose to address #2 because I agree, trust is not a requirement when considering someone's reasoning. In agreeing with you, there wasn't much for me to add.
    - noizejoy 3y ago
      I deleted my first response, because on further reflection it seemed you were more intent on defending your position, than having a friendly dialog. In friendly dialog, it's quite common to make agreements equally clear to disagreements. In addition, ghosting your conversation partner's agreed to points is indistinguishable from ignoring points you simply don't have a good retort to. If you were profusely nodding in agreement while reading parts of my comment, that was unfortunately invisible to me. In addition, my original post had the phrase "particular appeal for trust", followed by the very relevant sentence "Not mentioning anything about non association would have seemed weirder." You also ghosted that in your response. So you simply ignored my entire larger implication that it's not worth talking about the trustworthiness of the author of the OP, since there's no tangible evidence one way or the other. That's why I gave up and deleted my prior post.

by cylo 3y ago

ineedasername 3y ago

Okay, that's fair, but do you kind of see how a shiny new domain name & blog with exactly one post and an anonymous author saying you can trust them because they're not affiliated with Oracle... Can you see how that appeal for trust hasn't been built on firm ground?

cylo 3y ago
Sure, I suppose. I've never been called a sockpuppet before so I'm simultaneously insulted but also...honored in an odd way? Anyway, I'm not sure what else you'd have me do here. We all have to start somewhere. I put my thoughts out there under something I directly control and I'd rather people focus on the central thesis of the thoughts being proposed over resorting to personal attacks. I'll continue posting small essays on relevant topics under the domain.
- ineedasername 3y ago
  I didn't mean to say you were wrong in what you chose to write, but also that it wasn't wrong for someone to be highly skeptical of its authenticity. Write what you want and people will take it as they will, I just wanted to point out that how the GP comment took it wasn't without some basis. As to the merits of your thesis, I'll outline my understanding of it & my thoughts in response: 1) You're proposing OEL as an alternative for RHEL (and other such offerings) 2) People might object to it based on Oracle's reputation (well deserved) 3) People should put that repulsion aside though because... 4) Oracle really is letting people use it for free so users don't have to enter into a $ relationship with this predatory company However: People choose RHEL (or any paid enterprise distro) primarily because of the support contracts that guarantee service. This undermines your appeal in #3 & #4 above because it requires the exact thing you're saying users can avoid to overcome their repulsion. Also, if enough people start using this distro then I have no doubt that Oracle will at some point switch things up and try to monetize that userbase under threat of crippling legal bills. I say all of this as someone who has actually been deposed by lawyers in a lawsuit with Oracle, where events leading up to the lawsuit were very much a bait-and-switch. I won't bog down this comment with the details but if you're interested in the exact nature of that bait & switch let me know and I'll comment in reply-- it may change your mind (or not) about trusting Oracle not to do something like that with OEL
noizejoy 3y ago
I didn’t see a particular appeal for trust in the OP. Not mentioning anything about non association would have seemed weirder. Sometimes it’s interesting to read or hear from someone with a high trust score. Other times it’s interesting to read or hear a line of reasoning without - or even negative - trust score. Only going by trust arguably is one of the fundamental problems with tribalism and echo chambers.
- ineedasername 3y ago
  >I didn’t see a particular appeal for trust in the OP It's implicit within the statement that they don't have a conflict of interest. Trust is precisely what conflicts of interest are about, where their presence often (maybe not always) introduces the need to be more skeptical of the person's motives, i.e., less trust.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ineedasername 3y ago
  You deleted your other comment replying to me, I'm not sure why-- there was nothing wrong with questioning how I initially chose to respond, so I'll paste what I was writing back to you on that topic here: Your original comment said 1) you didn't see an appeal for trust and 2) went on to make broader statements that trust isn't necessarily required when considering an opinion (on it's merits, independently of high/low trust, was my interpretation of what you wrote) #2 Does not modify #1 in a way that would prohibit fair treatment of #1 when considering it alone. #1 is a straightforward question about the content of the article. I didn't choose to address #2 because I agree, trust is not a requirement when considering someone's reasoning. In agreeing with you, there wasn't much for me to add.
  - noizejoy 3y ago
    I deleted my first response, because on further reflection it seemed you were more intent on defending your position, than having a friendly dialog. In friendly dialog, it's quite common to make agreements equally clear to disagreements. In addition, ghosting your conversation partner's agreed to points is indistinguishable from ignoring points you simply don't have a good retort to. If you were profusely nodding in agreement while reading parts of my comment, that was unfortunately invisible to me. In addition, my original post had the phrase "particular appeal for trust", followed by the very relevant sentence "Not mentioning anything about non association would have seemed weirder." You also ghosted that in your response. So you simply ignored my entire larger implication that it's not worth talking about the trustworthiness of the author of the OP, since there's no tangible evidence one way or the other. That's why I gave up and deleted my prior post.