"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

On May 7, 8:27*pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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 --

On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 8:27 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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

Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> 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

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

Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> 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

On May 8, 1:49 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
wrote:
> Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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".

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!"

On May 8, 6:22 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
wrote:
> Rainer Duffner <rai...@ultra-secure.de> 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

On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> 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