[HN Gopher] Keep Linux Open and Free-We Can't Afford Not To
___________________________________________________________________
Keep Linux Open and Free-We Can't Afford Not To
Author : geerlingguy
Score : 157 points
Date : 2023-07-10 15:11 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.oracle.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.oracle.com)
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| [dead]
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| > Keep Linux Open and Free-We Can't Afford Not To
|
| > Oracle.com
|
| Oracle is telling someone to keep it free and open? LOL.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| > Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that you
| don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how you can
| save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream distributor of
| Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the burden.
|
| Not only is this a brilliant troll, it's also true. Oracle could
| easily take this on if it's such a burden for IBM.
| nontiko wrote:
| I know these are not the same situation, but this sounds like a
| different Oracle than the one that owns and manages Java.
| freedude wrote:
| I don't want to like Oracle, so I won't. However, what they said
| minus the business/political propaganda is spot on.
| evan1107 wrote:
| Yeah this is just opportunistic PR. Oracle cares less about Open
| Source than even the most brain dead Red Hatter. As with all
| things Oracle, they are taking the angle that potentially creates
| a revenue opportunity for themselves. This is fine. I get it but
| doing it under the guise of higher open source ideals is
| comically transparent. Their OEL market share mostly consists of
| them targeting specific Red Hat accounts and severely
| undercutting RHEL costs (since Red Hat incurs significantly more
| development burden and costs) and using it as a launch pad to
| embed myriad other Oracle products within the customer ecosystem.
| Other products that conveniently aren't grounded in their
| supposed open source ideals.
| D13Fd wrote:
| I agree with your blind hatred of Oracle. But you have to
| admit, this is pretty epic inter-company trolling, and what
| Oracle says in its post is basically right.
| whartung wrote:
| And to be fair, Oracle has been a remarkably good steward of
| Java. It's truly amazing how fast and far Java has come since
| the Java 7 and Java 8 days. It's been on a rocket sled of
| development, while still being shockingly well behaved for
| earlier code. If there's any critique, it's "too fast". But
| that's nonsense, since the LTS work helps maintain stability.
|
| And it's pretty wide open. They keep some things close to their
| vest, which is their prerogative, but even some of that stuff
| has been opening up over time as well.
|
| It's not been a seamless transition, but it's not been awful
| either. Developers are managing.
|
| It could have been far, far worse.
| binkHN wrote:
| Couldn't agree with this more--though I wasn't a fan of their
| lawsuit against Google for how Java was used in Android.
| stcroixx wrote:
| If my choices for Linux end up IBM or Oracle, I'll pick
| Oracle.
| timbit42 wrote:
| You will have more than two options so there is no need to
| choose either of those two.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Oracle has been a remarkably good steward of Java
|
| Well, other than ramming through modules and the --add-opens
| fiasco from Java 9.
| JohnFen wrote:
| How Oracle handles Java (business-wise, not in technological
| terms) is one of the things that tells me that Oracle is
| still the toxic company it's always been.
| delfinom wrote:
| They also buried a call home into the VBox Guest Extensions
| and eventually started sending legal demands to companies
| as well. Because while VBox was open license, the VBox
| Guest Extensions have a non-commercial use license by
| default but that doesn't stop VBox from asking you to
| install them innocently on the first run.
|
| Also 3 years ago, the guy in charge of a Oracle database we
| had (now migrated to MSSQL) accidentally downloaded the
| wrong Oracle database software from their portal. It turns
| out Oracle just lets you download any variant in their
| portal and then just send you legal demands for payment
| when you accidentally use a higher tier than you licensed.
| Something they can absolutely fix themselves to prevent. Of
| course we told them to fuck off since we didn't use any
| feature specific to the other tier and deployed the correct
| variant.
| chasil wrote:
| Assuming that you are using the Standard Edition/2 of the
| database, this is licensed at $17,500/core. On x86, there
| is a 2-for-1 core discount.
|
| If you download Enterprise Edition and use it to perform
| an upgrade from your SE2 database, then you will then be
| on the hook for the full $47,500/core.
|
| There are two ways to undo this license change. a) Run
| "catdwgrd.sql" to get back to the SE2 release, then
| upgrade again with the correct license, or b) unload all
| of the data in the database (via exp/imp or data pump),
| then load it into a new database that is created with the
| correct license.
|
| Staying on an EE database will certainly place you on the
| new pricing tier.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| "A broken clock is right twice a day," something like that.
| chasil wrote:
| Oracle does care about open source, to the extent that they
| have been the top Linux kernel contributor several times.
|
| https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/post/oracle-is-the-1-contribu...
|
| Oracle actually does not undercut the least expensive Red Hat
| support offerings. Oracle Linux support is $499/year for basic,
| and $1,399/year for premier. Both tiers allow 24x7 access to
| file service requests (SRs).
|
| https://www.oracle.com/linux/support/
|
| Red Hat has a more complicated support structure, starting with
| workstation-self support: $179, workstation-8x5 support: $299,
| server-self support: $349, server-8x5 support: $799,
| server-24x7 support: $1,299.
|
| https://www.redhat.com/en/store/linux-platforms
|
| It would be interesting if IBM did exactly what this Oracle
| blog suggests:
|
| "Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that you
| don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how you can
| save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream distributor
| of Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the burden."
| throwaway_62022 wrote:
| > Oracle does care about open source, to the extent that they
| have been the top Linux kernel contributor several times.
|
| Linux kernel _is_ not entirety of Linux. Given that there is
| Oracle cloud and various hardware Oracle has to support, it
| will be almost unthinkable if Oracle did not contribute to
| Linux kernel.
|
| But - I will be interested in Oracle's support for broader
| Linux ecosystem. How about contributions to GCC, Gnome (or
| any other DE as a matter of fact), Wayland/xorg etc? Oracle
| strictly contributes to projects from which it can benefit
| immediately.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Linux kernel is not entirety of Linux.
|
| Technically, yes, it is. "Linux" refers to the kernel, not
| to all of the other stuff you need on top of the kernel for
| a fully-formed OS. Although "Linux" is not used in that
| sense in the world at large anymore.
|
| But this distinction is why you see some people mentioning
| that you should say "Gnu/Linux" and the like when referring
| to the OS as whole.
| evan1107 wrote:
| Based on your provided links the apples to apples comparison
| for RHEL Server Standard Support ($799) would be the Oracle
| Basic Support ($499)
|
| Also, considering that OEL is downstream from RHEL how
| sustainable do we really think it would be for RHEL to
| downstream from OEL? How long would OEL invest and maintain
| in OS components that don't directly benefit their specific
| offerings? Is there evidence to suggest there is any truth
| behind that offer? In my years of following the Linux
| ecosystem Oracle's niche seems to have largely evolved around
| performance optimizations that solve specific problems they
| experience with other products or feature enhancements to
| facilitate new developments within their product ecosystem
| (which is still great for the community!) but what I have not
| seen is general purpose stewardship of the ecosystem of
| packages outside the kernel. I have no doubts they have made
| contributions of that nature but that has certainly not been
| a constant in what I have personally observed thus far.
| Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places but I genuinely don't
| believe Oracle would truly take on that responsibility nor do
| I believe that they would be anywhere near as effective as
| Red Hat at executing it
| chasil wrote:
| Oracle does maintain Solaris, which would seem to me to
| entail a much larger support burden than Red Hat's
| stewardship of their enterprise Linux distribution.
|
| Oracle also ships a few Linux userspace utilities outside
| of the main yum repos; the btrfs utilities come to mind.
| There really isn't any obvious btrfs performance need
| within Oracle or its products, which runs contrary to the
| spirit of your observations; in fact the Oracle database is
| explicitly not supported on btrfs.
|
| Note 2290489.1: "Oracle DB has specifically said that they
| do not support using BTRFS filesystems... BTRFS is
| optimized for _non-database_ workloads. "
|
| I will also somewhat agree with you in circumspection on
| the quality of Oracle's 24x7 support. I have endured
| frustrating delays on SRs for various reasons, and have
| been forced to escalate in the past. I don't know if IBM's
| $1,299 24x7 support is good, but I can say that Oracle's
| has been astonishingly bad - be prepared to escalate, which
| usually moves things along.
|
| I think that, if IBM decided to let go of all of their RHEL
| developers, Oracle is certainly capable of assuming this
| burden.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > Oracle does maintain Solaris, which would seem to me to
| entail a much larger support burden than Red Hat's
| stewardship of their enterprise Linux distribution.
|
| This seems like a non-sequitur in a conversation about
| open-source OSes.
| chasil wrote:
| I do not understand how, as Solaris was open previous to
| Oracle's acquisition.
|
| Red Hat does not maintain all of the code in RHEL - they
| repackage and patch everything taken from other
| developers. Very few packages are authored solely by
| them.
|
| I don't know what relationship Oracle has with the
| current owner of the UNIX System V source (appears to be
| The Open Group), but Oracle is responsible for vastly
| more of the kernel and userspace in Solaris than RHEL.
| throwaway_62022 wrote:
| > Red Hat does not maintain all of the code in RHEL -
| they repackage and patch everything taken from other
| developers.
|
| This is false. Red Hat does maintain code that is shipped
| by default with RHEL. It should be noted though, the
| number of packages that are part of default RHEL
| installation is small. Also upstream first policy
| basically means, any proposed patch must first be merged
| in upstream before being backported to rhel. If that does
| not make them maintainers, I don't know what will. Being
| sole author and maintainer are not the same thing.
| mighmi wrote:
| It takes people a long time to readjust preconceptions.
| Microsoft was the big bad for most of my life, but it took ~8
| years after Ballmers retirement for people to start noticing
| Microsofts prestigious opensourcing, interesting cloud
| offerings etc. where its now a commonplace that they've
| improved. Fascinating really.
|
| Oracles got quite the history, but they have been supporting
| Linux and Java well and killing Solaris was a segue into
| Linux too, ergo more open.
| delfinom wrote:
| Oracle has got the history and continues the same history,
| including the lawyers. You know why? The entire business is
| a cult structured around their majority owner, Larry who
| has never stepped away from the business.
| n6h6 wrote:
| What's up with the way you write the letter s? Is it a
| catch-all for apostrophes? I haven't seen anyone do that
| before, just curious.
| mighmi wrote:
| Long story short: I decided to start using a separate
| laptop for work/tech stuff. Setting it up has been a bit
| of a pain: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmint/comments/14
| vzvex/on_hp_la...
|
| To answer your question specifically, I'm used to
| "English (intl, with AltGr dead keys)" but in Linux Mint
| there are like 20 options. I was trying "US, intl, AltGr
| Unicode combining" or perhaps "US, intl, with dead keys"
| or such. (I've tried about a dozen in the last 2 days.)
| Instead of an apostrophe, they were generating what could
| become an accent mark, a stress mark or diacritic
| depending on the next letter. On "with AltGr dead keys"
| you must use right alt+apostrophe for that effect. (The
| quotation marks would do the same thing.)
|
| Anyway, the keyboard lets me type things like
| thdssaoessdfheu'6'^"1/423$?` with 2 buttons like shift to
| make a capital! This is good for German, Spanish and
| French, but Hungarian and Romanian require 3 buttons,
| then a 4th which is more tedious. left alt shift 5 = s t
| romanian left alt shift 3 = a lines for latin left alt
| shift 2 = u o - hungarian long umlaut
|
| If you really want to learn about ways to enter writing
| systems, this is a wild ride: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Chinese_input_methods_for_comp...
| Rechtsstaat wrote:
| On some keyboard layouts, pressing the quote mark starts
| a modifyer and then depending on the layout the following
| character is combined with the quote mark. Most English
| layouts don't include s in this, but some Eastern
| European (?) languages use that character more often and
| so include them in this modifyer shortcut.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I honestly didn't expect the explanation of that to be as
| interesting as it is! I had no idea...
| JohnFen wrote:
| Microsoft is still a big bad. As is Oracle.
|
| That they do some things you and I may agree with doesn't
| erase the terrible things that these companies do. Not just
| historically, but to this day.
| Hamcha wrote:
| They care so much for open source that they instantly killed
| OpenSolaris even if that led to much of the team quitting.
|
| They also very much care to create an open and competitive
| environment, that's why their reps repeatedly refused to sell
| us licenses to have Solaris run under VMWare ESXi, demanding
| we replace our ESXi deployments with... VirtualBox (no,
| really).
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > we certify Oracle software products on RHEL even though they
| are built and tested on Oracle Linux only, never on RHEL
|
| Okay, that's honestly really interesting, and that is quite a
| statement on their compatibility. I guess it saves them money on
| licensing and also sends a message.
| redroyal wrote:
| Ok maybe Oracle has a point here looking past their reputation.
|
| Did you know Sun had a Mac mini like product back in the day
| based on dual UltraSPARC T2+ Coolthreads SoCs? I almost bought it
| off eBay
|
| https://twitter.com/R_I_C_M/status/1646236005471485968
|
| https://twitter.com/alanc/status/1585752213565018114
|
| Wouldn't it be nice if Oracle brought that back and made the
| ultimate open source dev box? Their latest SPARC processors are
| wild
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| They also had the very cool Cobalt RAQ's.
|
| Nowadays, such a dev-focused box (instead of a mini do-it-all
| server) might be structured like the Mac Mini.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Wouldn't it be nice if Oracle brought that back and made the
| ultimate open source dev box?
|
| That would be irrelevant to me. If Oracle is involved, I don't
| want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.
| bluedino wrote:
| I'd really like to know the ratio of systems that are running
| RHEL vs the clones. 10:1? 100:1? 1000:1?
|
| The fear would be that stomping out 90 or 99 (or 99.9%) of your
| actual user base (even if they are non-paying) would you over.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Their motives are very clear. RHEL did a lot of work for them and
| maintaining compatability will be a lot harder without source
| code.
|
| I guess the promise to keep their distro open is something...
| weare138 wrote:
| You know you screwed up when Oracle has the moral high ground.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > Oracle has always made Oracle Linux binaries and source freely
| available to all.
|
| Hmmm, well yes, there's https://yum.oracle.com/oracle-linux-
| isos.html
|
| But no one here on HN in my memory has mentioned trying to run it
| on, say, a personal desktop. What's the reality of this?
| freedomben wrote:
| > _We chose to be RHEL compatible because we did not want to
| fragment the Linux community._
|
| ROFL, oh is that why?? :-D
| jtraub91 wrote:
| HAHA. Oracle clapping back at IBM.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| This is one of those uncomfortable situations where you find
| yourself on the same side as the devil.
| bas wrote:
| I felt dirty reading the blog post as a longtime ZFS (FreeBSD)
| user.
| version_five wrote:
| Free software works in part because it forces us, consumers,
| developers, businesses, into a better optimum than an a
| proprietary ecosystem. And that makes it work because it aligns
| incentives of self interested companies with keeping it open as
| we're seeing here.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Exactly, lol.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Worse, I find myself applauding the devil _for their
| championing Open Source_! This is _Oracle_! The lawnmower[0]!
| The company that killed OpenSolaris! What mad world is this!?
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=33m
| pengaru wrote:
| TBF Linux put OpenSolaris on life support, with RedHat's
| help.
|
| Oracle just pulled the plug.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| That's exactly right; I was surprised way back when that
| Linux wasn't cutting into the Windows marketshare very much
| at all, despite all the noise and fury coming from Redmond,
| but it was absolutely decimating big iron UNIX.
| pengaru wrote:
| Windows was already on low-margin consumer x86 boxes so
| there wasn't the same opportunity.
|
| Linux enabled commodity hardware to eat Big Iron's lunch
| using that same x86. Dell and IBM certainly made a good
| business filling datacenter racks with their x86
| offerings for quite some time.
| Aloha wrote:
| I think like, a big part of this was Solaris has near zero
| chance of gaining headshare among people who need Unix.
| Solaris has value for customers with vendor lock in, and its
| a declining revenue source which can be ridden out for a
| decade or two, and then discontinued.
| chasil wrote:
| I don't think that awaits Solaris.
|
| The Rdb database for OpenVMS is still getting updates, and
| a new port to the VMS-x86 release that has recently
| emerged.
|
| https://www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/rdb.ht
| m...
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Yeah, probably the consistent way to explain it is that
| Oracle thought they could get away with it for Solaris but
| the market of Linux distros is quite healthy and they don't
| have the power to pull the same thing so they push the
| other angle instead.
| Aloha wrote:
| As the poster I replied to pointed out, the lawnmower
| only cares about making money.
| solarkraft wrote:
| What I love most about the lawn mower analogy (which I apply
| to any company) is that sometimes it can also be useful.
| geodel wrote:
| Well world is about same as before. But it does remain tricky
| for people who think there is only one possible behavior for
| an entity all the time.
| robert_foss wrote:
| I was about to say. Never before have I agreeed with Oracle.
| electric_mayhem wrote:
| Big tech companies have a history of supporting the community
| where doing so attacks their competitors' cash cows.
|
| There's also that Oracle linux was formed from RHEL.
|
| Maybe let's not confuse Oracle undermining their competitor's
| moat with their genuinely being on the side of the community.
|
| It's been a while, but the necessity of MariaDB and Percona
| also seem to show that Oracle's been very much on the other
| side of this kind of move in the past.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| > Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that
| you don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how
| you can save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream
| distributor of Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the
| burden.
|
| I'd love for Red Hat to call Oracle's bluff, but it would
| never happen.
|
| Oracle's definitely been on the wrong side of these
| arguments for long enough that I wouldn't give the benefit
| of the doubt.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Maybe let's not confuse Oracle undermining their
| competitor's moat with their genuinely being on the side of
| the community.
|
| Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (Oracle) is
| better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons
| (IBM).
| JohnFen wrote:
| True, but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons
| doesn't mean that the company should be praised for it.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| This. It's more like a happy accident. If Oracle had a
| stated principle which was virtuous, and did something to
| specifically to uphold that principle when anyone else
| might have done something else, that would be something
| you thank them for. And this is not that.
|
| However there is also another idea that I think is valid,
| which is "reward the behavior you want to see". Whyever
| they did it, if it's good, you let them know that you
| want that and you don't burn them the one time they do
| something you always say you want.
|
| I still don't thank them though. There is no reasonable
| hope of ever influencing Oracle to become something 100%
| the opposite of what they are at their very core. So F
| them. I see no point in worrying about failing to reward
| the behavior you want to see in this case. You will never
| get the behavior you really want out of Oracle, and so
| all you would be doing is letting them influence you, not
| you influencing them.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > However there is also another idea that I think is
| valid, which is "reward the behavior you want to see"
|
| Yes, I agree with this as well. It's all complicated.
|
| Oracle only cares about one thing: profits. So any
| meaningful way of rewarding their behavior would have to
| come in the form of giving them more money. Every dollar
| you spend is, after all, a vote telling the entity you
| gave the dollar to to keep on doing whatever it is
| they're doing.
|
| This one fairly self-serving press release isn't enough
| for me to give Oracle any money, though. I don't think
| they'd take the right lesson from it. Especially because
| I'm not the sort of big spender that Oracle really cares
| about.
| zaphar wrote:
| This could be totally well intentioned and completely honest but
| no one would believe it anyway. Oracle has burnt so many bridges
| I'm not sure it could ever recover reputationally from it. It's
| always about more than just the technology. Reputation will play
| a large part in anyone's decision making.
| gaze wrote:
| [flagged]
| josephcsible wrote:
| Yes, Oracle is evil overall, but even a stopped clock is right
| twice a day. I'm totally on their side on this issue, just like
| even though Amazon is evil overall, I'm totally on their side
| with OpenSearch.
| zeroxfe wrote:
| The timing of this is hilarious:
| https://twitter.com/chatsidhartha/status/1649484240952721408
|
| Oracle just sent a legal threat to "Rust for Javascript" to
| remove "Javascript" from their name. (Oracle owns the
| "Javascript" trademark.)
| aewens wrote:
| To play the devil's advocate:
|
| IANAL, but if I recall correctly part of having a trademark is
| having a legal obligation to enforce it, and if I'm reading the
| tweet correctly this is a name of a company and typically one
| cannot use a trademark in their company name.
| slimsag wrote:
| (I am not a lawyer, I am speculating)
|
| Oracle can grant others the use of their trademark legally,
| right? There's no reason Oracle couldn't say this?
|
| > JavaScript is our trademark, you must either stop using it
| immediately OR <sign this online form here> to enter into an
| agreement with us that grants you the ability to use it, for
| as long as you please, no strings attached, no payment
| required.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Oracle can grant others the use of their trademark
| legally, right? There's no reason Oracle couldn't say this?
|
| Correct, with certain limitation[1]. This fact is why
| saying "but we _have_ to do this or lose our trademark " is
| a bit disingenuous. You do have to actively defend your
| trademark or lose it (because a trademark is not intended
| to benefit the company holding it, it's intended as a
| consumer protection measure). But "defending your
| trademark" doesn't mean you have to engage in a lawsuit.
|
| [1] The limitations are around the purpose of trademark as
| consumer protection measure. The idea is that consumers can
| rely on the trademark as a guarantee that a product or
| service is coming from who they think it's coming from.
| It's possible to be so liberal in licensing the use of your
| trademark out that it gets diluted enough to risk losing
| the registration.
| pmontra wrote:
| > Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that you
| don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how you can
| save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream distributor of
| Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the burden.
|
| It's nice to see big companies trolling each other.
| IceWreck wrote:
| > Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that you
| don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how you can
| save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream distributor of
| Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the burden.
|
| 100% PR. They know Red Hat will not actually do it so why not
| offer for PR points.
| ldehaan wrote:
| [dead]
| torstenvl wrote:
| Red Hat 5.0 (Hurricane) was my first-ever open source operating
| system. If you'd told me, 25 years ago, that one day Red Hat
| would withhold source from the Linux community, and that Oracle
| would be the champion of contributing back, I never would have
| believed you.
|
| This feels a little bit like when Ahmadinejad called out Putin
| for being a tyrannical narcissist.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I would have believed it. Red Hat always felt like a faceless
| corporation. And Oracle is just the successor to Sun
| Microsystems.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > And Oracle is just the successor to Sun Microsystems.
|
| Oracle closed the formerly Open Source OpenSolaris, so no, I
| would not give them that credit.
| adql wrote:
| Sun was FAR better than Oracle
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Hopefully this is a wake up call for IBM - Oracle is shaming you
| for not acting in the public good.
|
| Oracle!
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| It's GNU/Linux, Oracle. You can't even get _that_ right. ;-)
| fariszr wrote:
| Even red hat doesn't call it Gnu/Linux.
| JohnFen wrote:
| What do you mean _even_ Red Hat? Why would they be more
| likely to worry about this terminology?
| bigbillheck wrote:
| It's not the GNU part that's the issue here.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I mean, it's the GNU General Public License that is largely
| at play here. That's not the GNU part that most people refer
| to, but neither is it really the "Linux" kernel part that's
| central to the argument either.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| You mean (in order of "startup" and importance)
| GNU/systemd/Linux?
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Do they seriously not hear themselves? Oracle, free software
| champions of the world. It is clearly the End Times.
| koollman wrote:
| Yeah, right, I agree with ... err... Oracle. No, wait,
| something's wrong...
| timbit42 wrote:
| The problem is they are both wrong. There are more than two
| options.
| [deleted]
| StopHammoTime wrote:
| Sometimes I have trouble explaining irony.
|
| Now I can just send this article to people lmao.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Commoditize your... what was it?
| https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
| INTPenis wrote:
| Wow, to continue calling Red Hat IBM is a very passive aggressive
| move that I expect on message boards, not from corporate blogs.
| Interesting. ;D
| simiones wrote:
| Aren't they just a division inside IBM now?
| phone8675309 wrote:
| The leadership of Red Hat could have avoided this issue by not
| selling to IBM. Oh well. Seems like a silly thing to stan for
| Red Hat over.
| adql wrote:
| Their recent actions definitely feel more like IBM than Red Hat
| pengaru wrote:
| The moment IBM acquired Red^WBlueHat this was all inevitable,
| the only question was when.
| fariszr wrote:
| > From a practical standpoint, we believe Oracle Linux will
| remain as compatible as it has always been through release 9.2,
| but after that, there may be a greater chance for a compatibility
| issue to arise. If an incompatibility does affect a customer or
| ISV, Oracle will work to remediate the problem.
|
| > By the way, if you are a Linux developer who disagrees with
| IBM's actions and you believe in Linux freedom the way we do, we
| are hiring.
|
| Well to some extent, Redhat got what it wanted, clones are
| starting to contribute rather than just cloning, with stream
| becoming the center of it all.
|
| Cloudlinux did the same thing, they are hiring and starting to
| diverge from just being a RHEL clone.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Oracle: Keep Linux open and free; we couldn't figure out any way
| not to...
| nawfalak wrote:
| This does not read like a corporate blog lol. It's so passive
| aggressive and has minor insults all over the place.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| To be fair, so was Red Hat's statement which started all this.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| That's what I like about it. It sounds like a startup calling
| out a bigger competitor for anti-competitive behavior. (Ironic
| that it's coming from Oracle, but that's also what gives it
| some teeth!)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-10 23:02 UTC)