10 ms·

Oracle launches "a better alternative to CentOS"

157 points by wdaher 14y ago

bingbing 14y ago
Have they improved dtrace since this released abortion: http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2011/10/10/oel-this-is-not-dtrace/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2011/10/10/oel-this-is-not-dtrac... update: http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2012/02/23/dtrace-oel-update/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2012/02/23/dtrace-oel-update/
eleitl 14y ago
Right, except it's from Oracle. No, thanks.
- jhull 14y ago
  Funny how they addressed the fact that its from Oracle and there might be some hidden gimmick. At least they are self-aware. I want to not be skeptical and believe but I can't.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    Just as someone ripping you off will go to lengths to explain that they aren't ripping you off.
mapleoin 14y ago
Why are you doing this? This is not some gimmick to get you running Oracle Linux so that you buy support from us. If you're perfectly happy running without a support contract, so are we. We're delighted that you're running Oracle Linux instead of something else. At the end of the day, we're proud of the work we put into Oracle Linux. We think we have the most compelling Linux offering out there, and we want more people to experience it. Hihihihi. Sure you are.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I think it's more like "you are meaningless to us unless you want to buy a support contract". They do the exact same thing with MySQL. Download it and use it, but don't bug us unless you have cash in your hand.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- Terretta 14y ago
  img alt="Meme Generator - Image: Futurama's Fry with slitted eyes; Text: Can't tell if trolling / or brilliant" // I don't visit HN for memes, and don't like to have to click through to follow discussions.
alokm 14y ago
Is there any way to find out the statistics about number of "Oracle Linux" installations as compared to CentOS?
sspiff 14y ago
Oracle tries to do a Linux distro again? Also, that web page easily has the least appealing and professional looking layout I've seen in a long time.
dr_faustus 14y ago
Oh yeah! Please lock me in to your crappy Red Hat knock-off so you can screw me royally if Larry changes his mind and wants to extract some money from its users. IMHO, Oracle is certainly the LAST company you should use any product from unless you are absolutlely forced to (like Java, unfortunately, or their bloated DB if your are in the financial industry). Once you are dependent on them, no matter if you are a partner or customer, they will definitely find a way to screw you over. If you want supported Red Hat linux, just buy it from Red Hat. [UPDATE]: Also, how nice of the to mention Ksplice in the announcement as a quick reminder how they like to screw existing user bases of their products.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I'd be interested in hearing what you are referring to about Ksplice.
  - zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
    ksplice was supported in rhel.. when oracle purchased it, they announced they were going to drop rhel, and then turned it into a 30-day free trial-- after the 30-days, you must switch to oracle linux to continue using ksplice.
    - wdaher 14y ago
      Everyone we sold Ksplice to on RHEL is still running Ksplice on RHEL. So it's more accurate to say that we closed the door on new subscriptions for anything other than Oracle Linux, but all existing subscriptions remain unaffected (and those customers can even add new systems, if they'd like to.)
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- wdaher 14y ago
  FWIW, I think if you actually talked to any of our legacy Ksplice customers and asked them if the Ksplice experience has changed for them after the Oracle acquisition, the answer would be "no".
TallGuyShort 14y ago
If they think they have the most compelling Linux offering out there, why go to all the trouble of explaining how close you are to Red Hat?
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  Because RHEL compatibility is an important selling point, at least in the US Linux market.
  - nembleton 14y ago
    You got a very good point here. Look like the big names, it's good for image. Especially when you have a terrible image like oracle starts to have. ( or did it have it since a few years already? )
    - pgeorgi 14y ago
      It goes further than that: There's a certain set of people and corporations that started out with Red Hat Linux, and prefer to stay in that ecosystem (known tools, available work force). By claiming you're RHEL compatible, you "merely" compete against Red Hat, Cent OS and some other clones that some might not even have heard of (eg. Scientific Linux). You automatically exclude Ubuntu, Debian, Suse and so on, but while reasserting that RHEL compat is somehow important, you push them to the defenses, not yourself (except from the point of view of Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, ... fans, but you won't convince them anyway, so why bother?). That might be a reason why Red Hat doesn't bother too much about the clones: they make the RHEL ecosystem stronger, provides incentives for RHEL certifications, and RH can still try to upsell Oracle Linux users for the "original".
- jackbravo 14y ago
  because is the least thing they could do, since they are basically just providing you with a rebranded Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
- buster 14y ago
  There is lots of commercial software out there that only runs on RHEL or is only support to be run on RHEL.
pppp 14y ago
Oracle is the last company I would trust after opensolaris, etc.
cagenut 14y ago
I've run 200+ server environments on centos4, a 40+ server cluster on centos5, and now run a 50+ server cluster on rhel6. I'm pretty much dead on their target audience here. This seems almost mean. Its a billion dollar company calling out a volunteer group of a couple of guys for being slower than them. Part of the reason I switched to rhel was exactly this graph, I didn't have a lot of faith in centos as a going concern given the delays on 6. But also, its clearly not easy for a reason. There is a lot of work to be done, and the farther you trace your way up the rhel/epel/fedora tree the more you realize this is a community providing an insane amount of value and deserves to be funded. So if Oracle is going to sell me on using and/or paying for their distro, being faster than a handful of volunteers isn't gonna do it. Going toe-to-toe with redhat on funding, contributing, producing and supporting open source software such that I want to fund you is what'll do it.
- wdaher 14y ago
  (Disclaimer: I had a hand in a lot of this) That's not quite the intent. Look, here's the deal: I know we all like to think that corporations are evil and the presence of corporate interests actually messes stuff up. But this really is one case where you want the oomph of bilion-dollar company making sure that you get your security updates in time. No one else is providing that. Oracle happens to be doing so, and we're making it available to you for free, so why shouldn't you benefit from that? (And seriously, I get that you're not paying for CentOS, and I'm not interested in getting you to pay for Oracle Linux either.)
  - jasonlingx 14y ago
    Still no good answer... why is Oracle doing this? I don't see how this story doesn't end with a whole bunch of people having to convert back to CentOS when someone at Oracle questions the value in offering this distribution for free.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      It's obvious why Oracle is doing this. It's the same reason Red Hat does Fedora. It doesn't cost anything and eventually, you might reach a size or a problem where you need support. If you do, and you are running the free version of a company's Linux, that is the company that you will inevitably turn to (with your cash) for support.
jasonlingx 14y ago
What's their track record with Java, MySQL etc?
- debacle 14y ago
  Fantastic, actually. They've really embraced the OSS Java community and MySQL is stronger than it has ever been. The OpenSolaris community is also thriving, and Oracle's partnership with Google has helped move Android forward leaps and bounds.
  - buster 14y ago
    You should've put a </sarcasm> tag in the end ;)
    - keithpeter 14y ago
      Yes, fortunately, I was on my work PC that has a £10 keyboard when I was reading this. Seriously: what a palaaver that a huge company has to shove a tiny project aside.
  - timc3 14y ago
    Ha ha! Thanks for the best laugh I have had today
- taligent 14y ago
  Fantastic from the Java side. They have made a number of very useful improvements to the JVM e.g. addition of JRockit, new parallel GC etc at no cost. It is annoying that they don't offer a repo to allow for easy updates but there are scripts to help. And they just seem eager to push the platform forward with a confidence that was lacking from Sun.
qqqqqq 14y ago
But, if I wanted a better alternative to CentOS, wouldn't I just go and use Red Hat? Why would I lock myself into a company that has this bad a track record?
- sciurus 14y ago
  Because with Red Hat you have to pay for access to updates.
  - wdaher 14y ago
    Agreed. And I think "lock-in" is an unfair characterization. It's not like you can't switch back to CentOS or Scientific Linux.
    - druiid 14y ago
      How so? You guys are providing a script to switch from CentOS to OL, but I don't see a comparable script to switch back to CentOS. Where is the script to easily switch back when Oracle decides to screw everyone over as many have already brought up?
      - wdaher 14y ago
        druiid: If that happens, I will personally help you switch back any systems you switched over this way :) My email address is in my profile. As for everyone else, yeah, a '--reverse' was somewhere in our set of desired features for the script, but ultimately this became about some combination of "Launch early, launch often" and "MVP", two topics I know we all love here :)
        Buzaga 14y ago
        yeah, sure
        keithpeter 14y ago
        I suspect that the development of the --reverse switch would significantly increase the credibility of your offer. CERN is around for the long haul and Princeton isn't about to disappear, so there will always be a backout vehicle for refusniks.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
iuguy 14y ago
Readers please note this is the same 'Oracle Unbreakable Linux' they've been peddling for a while. If you can read that product name without feeling some sort of incredulation, this may the distro for you.
SwellJoe 14y ago
I'm pleased to see that evil deeds have consequences, though I'd like to see Oracle suffer a little (OK, a lot) more before getting over the hump. People don't use Oracle Linux because the Open Source community doesn't trust Oracle (and they shouldn't; that mistrust has been well-earned over a couple of decades). There's a lot of reasons not to use Oracle Linux, most of them non-technical. Oracle is simply not an ethical member of the Open Source community, and if you trust them, they will screw you, some day, some way. Red Hat may have their flaws, but they've never sued over patents and they've never attempted to destroy competing projects or companies through legal threats and bullying. CentOS may be slow to jump on updates sometimes and to get out new releases, but at least it's a good Open Source citizen. As an aside, if you want a faster moving RHEL rebuild that has paid developers working on it, you might try Scientific Linux. It is built by CERN and Fermilab, and tends to be very solid and fast to update and invisible (i.e., I don't think about it, at all, and it Just Works). We switched from CentOS to SL back when CentOS 6 was so late being released; couldn't be happier with it. We added support in Virtualmin for SL for just that reason...so many of our customers wanted 6, it was worth the effort to add a new OS. So, yeah, Oracle is gonna have to have a "come to Jesus" moment if they want to participate in the Open Source community. They've got a lot of repenting to do.
- ominous_prime 14y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't think SL holds up in a in all cases. CentOS (and Oracle) strive for binary compatibility. I've had cases where I needed to run vendor supplied binaries which were sometimes buggy on a non-centos EL system. Yeah, it sucks that the vendor only supplies binaries, and only tests against specific RHEL release points, but that's life sometimes. Don't get me wrong, Scientific Linux is great, but it's not for everyone.
  - SwellJoe 14y ago
    Yes, the priorities of SL are different from CentOS, and binary compatibility isn't quite as high on the list, from what I can tell. But, so many people are only using Open Source software, and just want a really popular, really stable, really long lifecycle Linux distro for their servers. That's the boat I'm in. I don't currently run anything that I can't get in source form on our servers, so I don't have any concerns about binary compatibility. That said, both of our products that specifically support SL and have binary packages in their repos (Virtualmin and Cloudmin) use the same yum repository of binaries across RHEL, CentOS, and Scientific Linux. We've never had any bug reports caused by that sharing of binaries. So, binary compatibility is pretty good in our admittedly limited experience (we only provide a handful of binaries).
swa14 14y ago
Thanks for the brtfs, but no thanks. I'll only touch your stuff with a GPL pole and with a non-oracle maintainer. If you want support for Centos, please consider redhat * I'm sure there are some good people at Oracle, and maybe this is a genuine project by some of them, but the hierarchy Oracle is under is just too fickle (as what happened with OpenSolaris). *Not redhat affiliated. Not even running redhat or fedora anywhere. But on enough mailinglists to see that RH isn't a respected open-source company for nothing.
ominous_prime 14y ago
I'm not in the least a fan of Oracle, but I think this could still be a safe move for a free EL distribution. It don't see a major drawback here: - You get faster and more reliable updates, especially important for security updates. - The release schedule will be more predictable (I know a lot of people moved to ScientificLinux while waiting for the CentOS6 release) - It's binary compatible with RHEL (and therefor CentOS). Meaning, that you can drop the Oracle repos and move back if you don't like the behavior you're seeing upstream.
- wdaher 14y ago
  I think that's an accurate summary. And I think the point that you can always switch back to CentOS or Scientific Linux is an important one. Ultimately, this is a topic where a lot of people have religious devotion, so for me it's really a question of whether pragmatism outweighs zealotry.
  - phaylon 14y ago
    I don't think labeling people who distrust Oracle as religious fanatics will turn the discussion into a constructive direction.
    - wdaher 14y ago
      Yes, you're absolutely right, and that wasn't my intent. (If I could edit it, I'd tone it down a little.) My goal is just to have people consider the case on its merits. If you've thought about it and concluded "OK, I see what you're offering, but I'm distrustful of Oracle based on past behavior, and that outweighs your benefits", awesome. I might not agree, but at least we had a reasonable discussion about it. As opposed to, e.g. "Oracle bad. Google good. Microsoft bad." (Which I'm totally guilty of myself, so I get where people are coming from.)
      - jgeorge 14y ago
        I compliment you on your enthusiasm, wish you success in bringing Oracle better reputation in the Linux community, and respectfully submit that I am distrustful of Oracle based on past behavior - specific to my experiences, not altruistically to the community in general. And for zealotry analytics, Oracle:bad Google:bad Microsoft:bad Apple:bad. Just because I use an OS (or several) doesn't mean I completely trust the intents of the companies supplying that OS (or several).
naner 14y ago
For the uninitiated, RedHat was so unhappy with Oracle repackaging/reselling a nearly identical system that they started obfuscating their patches: http://www.itworld.com/open-source/139165/red-hat-defends-kernel-code-obfuscation http://www.itworld.com/open-source/139165/red-hat-defends-ke... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Red-Hat-defends-changes-to-kernel-source-distribution-1202733.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Red-Hat-defends-chang...
sciurus 14y ago
The advantage of Oracle Linux that I see is the newer supported kernel version, On both Oracle Linux 5 and 6 you get 3.0, compared to 2.6.18 for RHEL5 and 2.6.32 for RHEL6.
- keithpeter 14y ago
  So if one were to run the script mentioned on the landing page that we are discussing, the result would be a kernel change on a server? Disclaimer: I do not support servers, I just have an interest in CentOS/SL on the desktop.
  - wdaher 14y ago
    Absolutely not! (The confusion stems from the fact that Oracle also has the "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel", which it also offers, but you need to explicitly install that with the "kernel-uek" package.)
- mmmooo 14y ago
  Are you sure about this? the public repo seems to show 2.6.18/2.6.32.. This would actually be a dis-advantage in many cases, as a number of vendor utils (I'm looking at you HP) don't play nice w/ 3.x kernels.
  - sciurus 14y ago
    They have the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel (UEK), as well as a RHEL-compatible kernel. I'm not sure which is the default in new installs. https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/entry/oracle_unbreakable_enterprise_kernel_release https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/entry/oracle_unbreakable_ente...
    - wdaher 14y ago
      From the release notes: "By default, both the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel and the Red Hat Compatible Kernel are installed on the x86_64 (64 bit) platform, and the system boots the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel by default. If needed, /etc/grub.conf can be modifed to make the system boot with the Red Hat Compatible Kernel by default." https://oss.oracle.com/el6/docs/RELEASE-NOTES-GA-en.html https://oss.oracle.com/el6/docs/RELEASE-NOTES-GA-en.html
buster 14y ago
What a bullshit comparison. They mean to replace RHEL (paid support) but try to win over CentOS customers (who surely won't pay for support, if they would want to, they would use RHEL and thus would have even faster security patches then Oracle Linux). Stay away.. as far as possible.. thanks.
bsphil 14y ago
Why all the vitriol towards Oracle? Not that I care either way, I don't have any stake in the matter. I just don't have much experience with them outside of limited usage of Java.
- debacle 14y ago
  1. Their database software is overpriced and bloated. 2. They participate in strong lobbying to get governments all over the world to purchase their overpriced products. 3. And support. 4. They recently sued Google over seven lines of code for billions of dollars. 5. They've let some technologies purchased from Sun languish, and have contributed to the fracturing of the OSS communities around these technologies. 6. Larry Ellison bribed his way out of a billion dollar insider trading deal. In short, Oracle is the poster child for why OSS users need to be vigilant and why government contracting needs serious reform.
debacle 14y ago
Oracle launches Oracle Linux -> People port over from CentOS -> CentOS community dies -> Oracle stops updating Oracle Linux for people without support contracts I'd call anyone claiming this strategy a looney if it weren't for the fact that the company doing this is Oracle and I'd put nothing below them as far as a business strategy.
- wdaher 14y ago
  The issue with that strategy is that it's totally untenable. As soon as Step 4 happens, someone else makes a new CentOS that everyone switches to. Fundamentally, there is a market need for something to fill the niche of CentOS. I happen to think that free-Oracle-Linux can be a better CentOS than CentOS, but if they were both to suddenly go away, something new would come to fill the obvious void.
  - debacle 14y ago
    Contrary to what you might think, switching distros is not a decision that can be made overnight.
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    > Fundamentally, there is a market need for something to fill the niche of CentOS. You know what fills the niche of CentOS pretty well? CentOS. If CentOS goes away, you know what will fill its niche? -- Scientific Linux. > I happen to think that free-Oracle-Linux can be a better CentOS than CentOS I think Oracle (which is already not having a stellar reputation in the open source community) just worsened its position. People with money pay Redhat for support. People who don't want to pay, will use CentOS, and a large proportion of those don't like Oracle and out of principle will avoid it. It seems after the litigation debacle, Oracle could have done something to improve its standing the programming community and maybe donated to CentOS, for example. That would have been nice. Instead they keep shooting themselves in foot. Will this affect Oracle's bottom line. Perhaps not. Maybe in the longer future. But don't be surprised at the negative reaction from other programmers on HN or other tech sites.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
While Oracle doesn't have the trust of the open source world, the enterprise IT world does trust it (and Ksplice is pretty awesome, too!). This is likely to become an important distribution over time. I've known companies that used CentOS for all the dev boxes and Redhat for production to save money. That has downsides because you are running different distros in the end (there can be subtle and not-so-subtle differences) and, if you have a problem on a non-prod box, your forced to use community support. Oracle Linux will become a viable alternative here. Run the same distro on all boxes and only pay for production boxes. Then, if you have a problem on an unsupported box, you can bump it up to supported without altering the box. The key here, for Oracle, is whether that support is actually worth paying for.
keithpeter 14y ago
http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/3/base/i386/ http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/3/base/i38... It took me some moments to realise that Oracle Linux 6.3 as a clone of RHEL will, of course, include libreoffice as the office package for the desktop installation as opposed to previous RHEL versions that included OpenOffice.org. There is a degree irony in this, but I imagine the number of customers using Oracle Linux as a desktop OS is small. I gather a number of financial institutions do use CentOS on desktops and RHEL on servers however.
- pwny 14y ago
  This has to be the funniest thing I've read today. A permanent reminder to whoever looks into Oracle Linux of how they've treated the Open Source community. The sweet, sweet irony.
Nux 14y ago
LOL! So they took it against RHEL and failed, not they're picking on CentOS (and they will fail). This is just hilarious! Can Oracle get any more pathetic than this?
dimecyborg 14y ago
Pure corporate term "Oracle Linux is the best Linux distribution on the market today"
mattbeck 14y ago
haha, yeah switching to an Oracle-backed version of CentOS is going to be 'better'. Better like Solaris? Needlessly different for it's own sake! Hah, no thanks.
zeruch 14y ago
Frankly, given how well they've managed every other FOSS element in their charge, I have no doubt that this is not only NOT a "better" alternative to CentOS (disclosure: I have no particular love for CentOS, but you do know what you are getting with them up front...your releases will be slow, a little far from bleeding edge, but deliberate and solid) and likely has some kind of business booby-trap attached.
tlogan 14y ago
I know that 'hackers news' folks (Google employees?) don't like Oracle, the enterprise IT world does trust Oracle. They trust Oracle much more than they trusts Google (not hard). From outside, neutral point of view, all these corporations Oracle, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. are equally "evil" - especially from point of view of Open Source community. Am I wrong here?
- buster 14y ago
  Exactly, you are not, that's why i'd rather trust RedHat with my OS then Oracle. BUT, strange enough, i'd say Sun had a pretty good reputation as software company, great engineers and minds. In the past, i'd rather agree to use Sun Solaris rather then some Oracle Linux. (Now, that Solaris is from Oracle, i wouldn't do that anymore)
sagarun 14y ago
I "heard" oracle folks got help from "centos" folks to rebuild "all" packages from redhat. Some packages just wouldn't build on koji. centos folks reportedly helped them. This is pure "evil"
noonespecial 14y ago
This sprang instantly to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
justin66 14y ago
Regarding trust issues, I went from trusting the CentOS team (and defending them against some criticisms that turned out to be quite valid) to being kind of disgusted with them during the CentOS 6 fiasco. There are different kinds of trust and I really don't see either CentOS or Oracle Linux as a good risk.
hluska 14y ago
I don't know what to say.... On one hand, good for Oracle, this actually sounds like a good initiative. On the other hand, Oracle consistently gives us reasons to distrust them. Consequently, while I think this is a good effort, I certainly wouldn't install it. In fact, I somewhat suspect that I'd find a way to make A/UX work before I install Oracle Linux.....
suyash 14y ago
Well done Oracle!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rdl 14y ago
Ksplice and a few other technical features could make this a technically better choice than RHEL (although I'd focus on adding security features beyond RHEL, which breaks some compatibility).
ShoNuff00007 14y ago
I have Oracle Linux and RHEL servers. The support from Oracle does not meet our needs, or expectations. When I open a ticket with them, they respond via e-mail. I cannot respond to the e-mail. I have to go back to their website to update the ticket. 99% of the time I have resolved the problem myself. Some I just gave up on after a few weeks of not being able to talk to a human, or someone who has a clue. I tried to show them some of the older tickets that I was complaining to them about their service on, but their system had already deleted them which increased my ire. In fairness, someone once got back to me at about 2am, after their call center rolled over to Asia. This person actually knew what he was talking about, (Once I got past the accent). However, I always get MUUUUUCH better support from RH, and IBM-(AIX). I don't call often, but when I call, I need an answer, not "Web Ticketing System tag". If you are going to Oracle for their support, go to RH instead, or you will be sorry. I sure am.

157 points by wdaher 14y ago

Have they improved dtrace since this released abortion: http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2011/10/10/oel-this-is-not-dtrace/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2011/10/10/oel-this-is-not-dtrac... update: http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2012/02/23/dtrace-oel-update/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2012/02/23/dtrace-oel-update/

eleitl 14y ago

Right, except it's from Oracle. No, thanks.

jhull 14y ago
Funny how they addressed the fact that its from Oracle and there might be some hidden gimmick. At least they are self-aware. I want to not be skeptical and believe but I can't.
- huggyface 14y ago
  Just as someone ripping you off will go to lengths to explain that they aren't ripping you off.

mapleoin 14y ago

Why are you doing this? This is not some gimmick to get you running Oracle Linux so that you buy support from us. If you're perfectly happy running without a support contract, so are we. We're delighted that you're running Oracle Linux instead of something else. At the end of the day, we're proud of the work we put into Oracle Linux. We think we have the most compelling Linux offering out there, and we want more people to experience it. Hihihihi. Sure you are.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I think it's more like "you are meaningless to us unless you want to buy a support contract". They do the exact same thing with MySQL. Download it and use it, but don't bug us unless you have cash in your hand.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Terretta 14y ago
img alt="Meme Generator - Image: Futurama's Fry with slitted eyes; Text: Can't tell if trolling / or brilliant" // I don't visit HN for memes, and don't like to have to click through to follow discussions.

alokm 14y ago

Is there any way to find out the statistics about number of "Oracle Linux" installations as compared to CentOS?

sspiff 14y ago

Oracle tries to do a Linux distro again? Also, that web page easily has the least appealing and professional looking layout I've seen in a long time.

dr_faustus 14y ago

Oh yeah! Please lock me in to your crappy Red Hat knock-off so you can screw me royally if Larry changes his mind and wants to extract some money from its users. IMHO, Oracle is certainly the LAST company you should use any product from unless you are absolutlely forced to (like Java, unfortunately, or their bloated DB if your are in the financial industry). Once you are dependent on them, no matter if you are a partner or customer, they will definitely find a way to screw you over. If you want supported Red Hat linux, just buy it from Red Hat. [UPDATE]: Also, how nice of the to mention Ksplice in the announcement as a quick reminder how they like to screw existing user bases of their products.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I'd be interested in hearing what you are referring to about Ksplice.
- zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
  ksplice was supported in rhel.. when oracle purchased it, they announced they were going to drop rhel, and then turned it into a 30-day free trial-- after the 30-days, you must switch to oracle linux to continue using ksplice.
  - wdaher 14y ago
    Everyone we sold Ksplice to on RHEL is still running Ksplice on RHEL. So it's more accurate to say that we closed the door on new subscriptions for anything other than Oracle Linux, but all existing subscriptions remain unaffected (and those customers can even add new systems, if they'd like to.)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
wdaher 14y ago
FWIW, I think if you actually talked to any of our legacy Ksplice customers and asked them if the Ksplice experience has changed for them after the Oracle acquisition, the answer would be "no".

TallGuyShort 14y ago

If they think they have the most compelling Linux offering out there, why go to all the trouble of explaining how close you are to Red Hat?

pgeorgi 14y ago
Because RHEL compatibility is an important selling point, at least in the US Linux market.
- nembleton 14y ago
  You got a very good point here. Look like the big names, it's good for image. Especially when you have a terrible image like oracle starts to have. ( or did it have it since a few years already? )
  - pgeorgi 14y ago
    It goes further than that: There's a certain set of people and corporations that started out with Red Hat Linux, and prefer to stay in that ecosystem (known tools, available work force). By claiming you're RHEL compatible, you "merely" compete against Red Hat, Cent OS and some other clones that some might not even have heard of (eg. Scientific Linux). You automatically exclude Ubuntu, Debian, Suse and so on, but while reasserting that RHEL compat is somehow important, you push them to the defenses, not yourself (except from the point of view of Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, ... fans, but you won't convince them anyway, so why bother?). That might be a reason why Red Hat doesn't bother too much about the clones: they make the RHEL ecosystem stronger, provides incentives for RHEL certifications, and RH can still try to upsell Oracle Linux users for the "original".
jackbravo 14y ago
because is the least thing they could do, since they are basically just providing you with a rebranded Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
buster 14y ago
There is lots of commercial software out there that only runs on RHEL or is only support to be run on RHEL.

pppp 14y ago

Oracle is the last company I would trust after opensolaris, etc.

cagenut 14y ago

I've run 200+ server environments on centos4, a 40+ server cluster on centos5, and now run a 50+ server cluster on rhel6. I'm pretty much dead on their target audience here. This seems almost mean. Its a billion dollar company calling out a volunteer group of a couple of guys for being slower than them. Part of the reason I switched to rhel was exactly this graph, I didn't have a lot of faith in centos as a going concern given the delays on 6. But also, its clearly not easy for a reason. There is a lot of work to be done, and the farther you trace your way up the rhel/epel/fedora tree the more you realize this is a community providing an insane amount of value and deserves to be funded. So if Oracle is going to sell me on using and/or paying for their distro, being faster than a handful of volunteers isn't gonna do it. Going toe-to-toe with redhat on funding, contributing, producing and supporting open source software such that I want to fund you is what'll do it.

wdaher 14y ago
(Disclaimer: I had a hand in a lot of this) That's not quite the intent. Look, here's the deal: I know we all like to think that corporations are evil and the presence of corporate interests actually messes stuff up. But this really is one case where you want the oomph of bilion-dollar company making sure that you get your security updates in time. No one else is providing that. Oracle happens to be doing so, and we're making it available to you for free, so why shouldn't you benefit from that? (And seriously, I get that you're not paying for CentOS, and I'm not interested in getting you to pay for Oracle Linux either.)
- jasonlingx 14y ago
  Still no good answer... why is Oracle doing this? I don't see how this story doesn't end with a whole bunch of people having to convert back to CentOS when someone at Oracle questions the value in offering this distribution for free.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    It's obvious why Oracle is doing this. It's the same reason Red Hat does Fedora. It doesn't cost anything and eventually, you might reach a size or a problem where you need support. If you do, and you are running the free version of a company's Linux, that is the company that you will inevitably turn to (with your cash) for support.

jasonlingx 14y ago

What's their track record with Java, MySQL etc?

debacle 14y ago
Fantastic, actually. They've really embraced the OSS Java community and MySQL is stronger than it has ever been. The OpenSolaris community is also thriving, and Oracle's partnership with Google has helped move Android forward leaps and bounds.
- buster 14y ago
  You should've put a </sarcasm> tag in the end ;)
  - keithpeter 14y ago
    Yes, fortunately, I was on my work PC that has a £10 keyboard when I was reading this. Seriously: what a palaaver that a huge company has to shove a tiny project aside.
- timc3 14y ago
  Ha ha! Thanks for the best laugh I have had today
taligent 14y ago
Fantastic from the Java side. They have made a number of very useful improvements to the JVM e.g. addition of JRockit, new parallel GC etc at no cost. It is annoying that they don't offer a repo to allow for easy updates but there are scripts to help. And they just seem eager to push the platform forward with a confidence that was lacking from Sun.

qqqqqq 14y ago

But, if I wanted a better alternative to CentOS, wouldn't I just go and use Red Hat? Why would I lock myself into a company that has this bad a track record?

sciurus 14y ago
Because with Red Hat you have to pay for access to updates.
- wdaher 14y ago
  Agreed. And I think "lock-in" is an unfair characterization. It's not like you can't switch back to CentOS or Scientific Linux.
  - druiid 14y ago
    How so? You guys are providing a script to switch from CentOS to OL, but I don't see a comparable script to switch back to CentOS. Where is the script to easily switch back when Oracle decides to screw everyone over as many have already brought up?
    - wdaher 14y ago
      druiid: If that happens, I will personally help you switch back any systems you switched over this way :) My email address is in my profile. As for everyone else, yeah, a '--reverse' was somewhere in our set of desired features for the script, but ultimately this became about some combination of "Launch early, launch often" and "MVP", two topics I know we all love here :)
      - Buzaga 14y ago
        yeah, sure
      - keithpeter 14y ago
        I suspect that the development of the --reverse switch would significantly increase the credibility of your offer. CERN is around for the long haul and Princeton isn't about to disappear, so there will always be a backout vehicle for refusniks.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

iuguy 14y ago

Readers please note this is the same 'Oracle Unbreakable Linux' they've been peddling for a while. If you can read that product name without feeling some sort of incredulation, this may the distro for you.

SwellJoe 14y ago

I'm pleased to see that evil deeds have consequences, though I'd like to see Oracle suffer a little (OK, a lot) more before getting over the hump. People don't use Oracle Linux because the Open Source community doesn't trust Oracle (and they shouldn't; that mistrust has been well-earned over a couple of decades). There's a lot of reasons not to use Oracle Linux, most of them non-technical. Oracle is simply not an ethical member of the Open Source community, and if you trust them, they will screw you, some day, some way. Red Hat may have their flaws, but they've never sued over patents and they've never attempted to destroy competing projects or companies through legal threats and bullying. CentOS may be slow to jump on updates sometimes and to get out new releases, but at least it's a good Open Source citizen. As an aside, if you want a faster moving RHEL rebuild that has paid developers working on it, you might try Scientific Linux. It is built by CERN and Fermilab, and tends to be very solid and fast to update and invisible (i.e., I don't think about it, at all, and it Just Works). We switched from CentOS to SL back when CentOS 6 was so late being released; couldn't be happier with it. We added support in Virtualmin for SL for just that reason...so many of our customers wanted 6, it was worth the effort to add a new OS. So, yeah, Oracle is gonna have to have a "come to Jesus" moment if they want to participate in the Open Source community. They've got a lot of repenting to do.

ominous_prime 14y ago
Unfortunately, I don't think SL holds up in a in all cases. CentOS (and Oracle) strive for binary compatibility. I've had cases where I needed to run vendor supplied binaries which were sometimes buggy on a non-centos EL system. Yeah, it sucks that the vendor only supplies binaries, and only tests against specific RHEL release points, but that's life sometimes. Don't get me wrong, Scientific Linux is great, but it's not for everyone.
- SwellJoe 14y ago
  Yes, the priorities of SL are different from CentOS, and binary compatibility isn't quite as high on the list, from what I can tell. But, so many people are only using Open Source software, and just want a really popular, really stable, really long lifecycle Linux distro for their servers. That's the boat I'm in. I don't currently run anything that I can't get in source form on our servers, so I don't have any concerns about binary compatibility. That said, both of our products that specifically support SL and have binary packages in their repos (Virtualmin and Cloudmin) use the same yum repository of binaries across RHEL, CentOS, and Scientific Linux. We've never had any bug reports caused by that sharing of binaries. So, binary compatibility is pretty good in our admittedly limited experience (we only provide a handful of binaries).

swa14 14y ago

Thanks for the brtfs, but no thanks. I'll only touch your stuff with a GPL pole and with a non-oracle maintainer. If you want support for Centos, please consider redhat * I'm sure there are some good people at Oracle, and maybe this is a genuine project by some of them, but the hierarchy Oracle is under is just too fickle (as what happened with OpenSolaris). *Not redhat affiliated. Not even running redhat or fedora anywhere. But on enough mailinglists to see that RH isn't a respected open-source company for nothing.

ominous_prime 14y ago

I'm not in the least a fan of Oracle, but I think this could still be a safe move for a free EL distribution. It don't see a major drawback here: - You get faster and more reliable updates, especially important for security updates. - The release schedule will be more predictable (I know a lot of people moved to ScientificLinux while waiting for the CentOS6 release) - It's binary compatible with RHEL (and therefor CentOS). Meaning, that you can drop the Oracle repos and move back if you don't like the behavior you're seeing upstream.

wdaher 14y ago
I think that's an accurate summary. And I think the point that you can always switch back to CentOS or Scientific Linux is an important one. Ultimately, this is a topic where a lot of people have religious devotion, so for me it's really a question of whether pragmatism outweighs zealotry.
- phaylon 14y ago
  I don't think labeling people who distrust Oracle as religious fanatics will turn the discussion into a constructive direction.
  - wdaher 14y ago
    Yes, you're absolutely right, and that wasn't my intent. (If I could edit it, I'd tone it down a little.) My goal is just to have people consider the case on its merits. If you've thought about it and concluded "OK, I see what you're offering, but I'm distrustful of Oracle based on past behavior, and that outweighs your benefits", awesome. I might not agree, but at least we had a reasonable discussion about it. As opposed to, e.g. "Oracle bad. Google good. Microsoft bad." (Which I'm totally guilty of myself, so I get where people are coming from.)
    - jgeorge 14y ago
      I compliment you on your enthusiasm, wish you success in bringing Oracle better reputation in the Linux community, and respectfully submit that I am distrustful of Oracle based on past behavior - specific to my experiences, not altruistically to the community in general. And for zealotry analytics, Oracle:bad Google:bad Microsoft:bad Apple:bad. Just because I use an OS (or several) doesn't mean I completely trust the intents of the companies supplying that OS (or several).

naner 14y ago

For the uninitiated, RedHat was so unhappy with Oracle repackaging/reselling a nearly identical system that they started obfuscating their patches: http://www.itworld.com/open-source/139165/red-hat-defends-kernel-code-obfuscation http://www.itworld.com/open-source/139165/red-hat-defends-ke... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Red-Hat-defends-changes-to-kernel-source-distribution-1202733.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Red-Hat-defends-chang...

sciurus 14y ago

The advantage of Oracle Linux that I see is the newer supported kernel version, On both Oracle Linux 5 and 6 you get 3.0, compared to 2.6.18 for RHEL5 and 2.6.32 for RHEL6.

keithpeter 14y ago
So if one were to run the script mentioned on the landing page that we are discussing, the result would be a kernel change on a server? Disclaimer: I do not support servers, I just have an interest in CentOS/SL on the desktop.
- wdaher 14y ago
  Absolutely not! (The confusion stems from the fact that Oracle also has the "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel", which it also offers, but you need to explicitly install that with the "kernel-uek" package.)
mmmooo 14y ago
Are you sure about this? the public repo seems to show 2.6.18/2.6.32.. This would actually be a dis-advantage in many cases, as a number of vendor utils (I'm looking at you HP) don't play nice w/ 3.x kernels.
- sciurus 14y ago
  They have the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel (UEK), as well as a RHEL-compatible kernel. I'm not sure which is the default in new installs. https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/entry/oracle_unbreakable_enterprise_kernel_release https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/entry/oracle_unbreakable_ente...
  - wdaher 14y ago
    From the release notes: "By default, both the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel and the Red Hat Compatible Kernel are installed on the x86_64 (64 bit) platform, and the system boots the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel by default. If needed, /etc/grub.conf can be modifed to make the system boot with the Red Hat Compatible Kernel by default." https://oss.oracle.com/el6/docs/RELEASE-NOTES-GA-en.html https://oss.oracle.com/el6/docs/RELEASE-NOTES-GA-en.html

buster 14y ago

What a bullshit comparison. They mean to replace RHEL (paid support) but try to win over CentOS customers (who surely won't pay for support, if they would want to, they would use RHEL and thus would have even faster security patches then Oracle Linux). Stay away.. as far as possible.. thanks.

bsphil 14y ago

Why all the vitriol towards Oracle? Not that I care either way, I don't have any stake in the matter. I just don't have much experience with them outside of limited usage of Java.

debacle 14y ago
1. Their database software is overpriced and bloated. 2. They participate in strong lobbying to get governments all over the world to purchase their overpriced products. 3. And support. 4. They recently sued Google over seven lines of code for billions of dollars. 5. They've let some technologies purchased from Sun languish, and have contributed to the fracturing of the OSS communities around these technologies. 6. Larry Ellison bribed his way out of a billion dollar insider trading deal. In short, Oracle is the poster child for why OSS users need to be vigilant and why government contracting needs serious reform.

debacle 14y ago

Oracle launches Oracle Linux -> People port over from CentOS -> CentOS community dies -> Oracle stops updating Oracle Linux for people without support contracts I'd call anyone claiming this strategy a looney if it weren't for the fact that the company doing this is Oracle and I'd put nothing below them as far as a business strategy.

wdaher 14y ago
The issue with that strategy is that it's totally untenable. As soon as Step 4 happens, someone else makes a new CentOS that everyone switches to. Fundamentally, there is a market need for something to fill the niche of CentOS. I happen to think that free-Oracle-Linux can be a better CentOS than CentOS, but if they were both to suddenly go away, something new would come to fill the obvious void.
- debacle 14y ago
  Contrary to what you might think, switching distros is not a decision that can be made overnight.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  > Fundamentally, there is a market need for something to fill the niche of CentOS. You know what fills the niche of CentOS pretty well? CentOS. If CentOS goes away, you know what will fill its niche? -- Scientific Linux. > I happen to think that free-Oracle-Linux can be a better CentOS than CentOS I think Oracle (which is already not having a stellar reputation in the open source community) just worsened its position. People with money pay Redhat for support. People who don't want to pay, will use CentOS, and a large proportion of those don't like Oracle and out of principle will avoid it. It seems after the litigation debacle, Oracle could have done something to improve its standing the programming community and maybe donated to CentOS, for example. That would have been nice. Instead they keep shooting themselves in foot. Will this affect Oracle's bottom line. Perhaps not. Maybe in the longer future. But don't be surprised at the negative reaction from other programmers on HN or other tech sites.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

While Oracle doesn't have the trust of the open source world, the enterprise IT world does trust it (and Ksplice is pretty awesome, too!). This is likely to become an important distribution over time. I've known companies that used CentOS for all the dev boxes and Redhat for production to save money. That has downsides because you are running different distros in the end (there can be subtle and not-so-subtle differences) and, if you have a problem on a non-prod box, your forced to use community support. Oracle Linux will become a viable alternative here. Run the same distro on all boxes and only pay for production boxes. Then, if you have a problem on an unsupported box, you can bump it up to supported without altering the box. The key here, for Oracle, is whether that support is actually worth paying for.

keithpeter 14y ago

http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/3/base/i386/ http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/3/base/i38... It took me some moments to realise that Oracle Linux 6.3 as a clone of RHEL will, of course, include libreoffice as the office package for the desktop installation as opposed to previous RHEL versions that included OpenOffice.org. There is a degree irony in this, but I imagine the number of customers using Oracle Linux as a desktop OS is small. I gather a number of financial institutions do use CentOS on desktops and RHEL on servers however.

pwny 14y ago
This has to be the funniest thing I've read today. A permanent reminder to whoever looks into Oracle Linux of how they've treated the Open Source community. The sweet, sweet irony.

Nux 14y ago

LOL! So they took it against RHEL and failed, not they're picking on CentOS (and they will fail). This is just hilarious! Can Oracle get any more pathetic than this?

dimecyborg 14y ago

Pure corporate term "Oracle Linux is the best Linux distribution on the market today"

mattbeck 14y ago

haha, yeah switching to an Oracle-backed version of CentOS is going to be 'better'. Better like Solaris? Needlessly different for it's own sake! Hah, no thanks.

zeruch 14y ago

Frankly, given how well they've managed every other FOSS element in their charge, I have no doubt that this is not only NOT a "better" alternative to CentOS (disclosure: I have no particular love for CentOS, but you do know what you are getting with them up front...your releases will be slow, a little far from bleeding edge, but deliberate and solid) and likely has some kind of business booby-trap attached.

tlogan 14y ago

I know that 'hackers news' folks (Google employees?) don't like Oracle, the enterprise IT world does trust Oracle. They trust Oracle much more than they trusts Google (not hard). From outside, neutral point of view, all these corporations Oracle, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. are equally "evil" - especially from point of view of Open Source community. Am I wrong here?

buster 14y ago
Exactly, you are not, that's why i'd rather trust RedHat with my OS then Oracle. BUT, strange enough, i'd say Sun had a pretty good reputation as software company, great engineers and minds. In the past, i'd rather agree to use Sun Solaris rather then some Oracle Linux. (Now, that Solaris is from Oracle, i wouldn't do that anymore)

sagarun 14y ago

I "heard" oracle folks got help from "centos" folks to rebuild "all" packages from redhat. Some packages just wouldn't build on koji. centos folks reportedly helped them. This is pure "evil"

noonespecial 14y ago

This sprang instantly to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

justin66 14y ago

Regarding trust issues, I went from trusting the CentOS team (and defending them against some criticisms that turned out to be quite valid) to being kind of disgusted with them during the CentOS 6 fiasco. There are different kinds of trust and I really don't see either CentOS or Oracle Linux as a good risk.

hluska 14y ago

I don't know what to say.... On one hand, good for Oracle, this actually sounds like a good initiative. On the other hand, Oracle consistently gives us reasons to distrust them. Consequently, while I think this is a good effort, I certainly wouldn't install it. In fact, I somewhat suspect that I'd find a way to make A/UX work before I install Oracle Linux.....

suyash 14y ago

Well done Oracle!

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rdl 14y ago

Ksplice and a few other technical features could make this a technically better choice than RHEL (although I'd focus on adding security features beyond RHEL, which breaks some compatibility).

ShoNuff00007 14y ago

I have Oracle Linux and RHEL servers. The support from Oracle does not meet our needs, or expectations. When I open a ticket with them, they respond via e-mail. I cannot respond to the e-mail. I have to go back to their website to update the ticket. 99% of the time I have resolved the problem myself. Some I just gave up on after a few weeks of not being able to talk to a human, or someone who has a clue. I tried to show them some of the older tickets that I was complaining to them about their service on, but their system had already deleted them which increased my ire. In fairness, someone once got back to me at about 2am, after their call center rolled over to Asia. This person actually knew what he was talking about, (Once I got past the accent). However, I always get MUUUUUCH better support from RH, and IBM-(AIX). I don't call often, but when I call, I need an answer, not "Web Ticketing System tag". If you are going to Oracle for their support, go to RH instead, or you will be sorry. I sure am.