Oracle responds to Red Hat

  • SALT@lemmy.my.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can on CentOS Stream… it’s the Red Hat upstream, but it is same as RHEL to be a testing ground…

    Oracle is shit because they use Red Hat works, providing contract on top of it… and only add UEK as … “better option” …

    They (oracle) do contribute some on mainline kernel, but by making RHEL copy paste and only add UEK and their product… ugh… I don’t know.

    • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oracle is shit because they use Red Hat works, providing contract on top of it… and only add UEK as … “better option” …

      That’s something they were allowed to do. It’s something everyone was allowed to do. FOSS means free and open source for everyone, even people and organizations you don’t like. Otherwise it’s not really free (as in freedom), now is it?

      Also, the “contract on top of it” is this license, which is a pretty short read. In my view it’s a very inoffensive license compared to Red Hat’s coercive license.

      Also also, they’re forking Oracle Linux from RHEL as of 9.3, so they’re won’t be “taking” from Red Hat in future anyhow.

      They (oracle) do contribute some on mainline kernel, but by making RHEL copy paste and only add UEK and their product… ugh… I don’t know.

      It drives me nuts when I see people imply that Oracle was somehow “stealing” from Red Hat by creating a downstream distro. It’s not theft when the thing being taken was free and open source! So Oracle copy-pasted RHEL, made some changes and redistributed it. So what? That’s something everyone was allowed to do, as long as they didn’t violate the open source license while doing it. Oracle isn’t violating the open source licenses, the sources are freely available, so why should I fault them for doing what they did?

      I think you’re also overlooking how much Oracle Linux actually benefited Red Hat themselves. By making Oracle Linux a downstream distro and testing all the Oracle software on it, I’d argue that Oracle actually made RHEL more valuable by increasing the number of enterprise workloads RHEL could support. Yes, a customer could theoretically get support from Oracle instead of Red Hat, but hardly anyone actually did that. I see real-world Oracle Database installs every day and the majority of them are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux proper. Very few are on a downstream. Every one of those RHEL installs is a paying Red Hat customer.

      Oracle didn’t do all that out of the goodness of their hearts of course, they did it because their customers wanted to standardize on one OS and Oracle wanted to sell them database (and other) software. They did it for profit, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Both Oracle and Red Hat profited from that arrangement. Every enterprise Linux user indirectly benefited from the arrangement too, because it meant there was a less fragmented OS ecosystem to build on! But now Red Hat wants to alter the deal, Vader-style, Oracle is forking Oracle Linux, and you know who loses the most in all of this? All of those users who previously enjoyed the benefit of a less fragmented enterprise OS landscape, myself among them. As far I’m concerned, the blame for that lies squarely at Red Hat’s feet.