
Oracle spreading FUD about CentOS - bashtoni
http://www.bashton.com/blog/2012/oracle-spreading-fud-about-centos/
======
rdtsc
They are already disliked in the open source community. This is not helping
their case. I am not sure what they are going for. This sets them up again as
a giant corporation attack the little guy. Geeks and nerds usually hate when
little open source projects get attacked.

Why didn't they just offer paid support for CentOS? Why not dedicate full time
engineers and donate?

Someone at Oracle needs to be fired over this.

~~~
maratd
> Why didn't they just offer paid support for CentOS? Why not dedicate full
> time engineers and donate?

Ah! I think you nailed it. A key part of what makes open source work is
corporations putting guys on projects, donating code, and being part of the
_ecosystem_.

Oracle doesn't want to be a part of the ecosystem. They want to _be_ the
ecosystem. They don't contribute to projects. They either purchase them
outright if they can or start their own.

Technically, that's still open source. It's just seriously anti-social open
source.

~~~
rdtsc
Can't tell you how many time government and military refused to pay less for
our product running on CentOS and instead wanted to pay lots more for a Redhat
license so they can have support. Nevermind that once setup they only have to
do yum update to get the latest security patches and not much else.

There are some companies that offer CentOS support but they are not as
prominent perhaps. I think Oracle should have done that, and in the process
win some brownie points with the OS community.

From their point of view pissing off some idealistic OS nerds wearing T-shirts
and flip-flops is nothing to worry about. However, the problem is a lot of
these nerds end up making technology choices, directly or indirectly by
advising their managers what is better, etc.

~~~
wdaher
Ironically, as a t-shirt/flip-flop nerd myself, I was hoping that this would
be something that would appeal to nerds, rather than pissing them off: "Hey,
Oracle is giving me this thing that sounds useful for free".

~~~
rdtsc
> Hey, Oracle is giving me this thing that sounds useful for free

We already have that, it is called CentOS. If giving something for free means
trying to trample another open source project, then 'No Thanks, I think I'll
pass'.

~~~
eropple
Even if that other project is better?

I don't think Android's developers should feel super duper sad that they
killed Meego's chances of rising from obscurity.

~~~
rdtsc
Not sure how to measure "better" in this case. Better for RHEL clones usually
means "less changes" than other clones and close to upstream. I guess "better"
is support and speed of updates. So in case of a software project you can
usually just look at the features and say "oh, look, can see how they added
a,b,c and now it is exactly what I want" This is a cloning project, so the
best feature is how closely it tracks upstream. But one can't know that unless
one switches to it first, and I am guessing, there is enough antagonism in the
community that many will not make that first step.

~~~
eropple
Sure, and I agree, but that's not what you said.

------
kqr2
The guy who made the graph which is "spreading FUD about CentOS" responds in
the comment section:

[http://www.bashton.com/blog/2012/oracle-spreading-fud-
about-...](http://www.bashton.com/blog/2012/oracle-spreading-fud-about-
centos/#comment-591268331)

------
kstenerud
The main problem is that Oracle's open source track record speaks for itself.

Now they suddenly want to play "nice", and so they do it by forking a well
respected, volunteer driven distro rather than simply contributing to it and
helping streamline the security update process. And then they top it all off
with a negative ad campaign.

I'm sorry, but you're still not getting it, Oracle.

~~~
nl
Did Oracle fork CentOS?

I thought they just copied RHEL, exactly how CentOS & Scientific Linux did.

------
buster
Good article.

I think the key sentence is "...if you want the security updates first, the
only way to get them is by paying Red Hat for support, not Oracle."

You can also add "if you want additional support, the best way is to pay the
much more experienced creator RedHat, not Oracle."

~~~
wdaher
For what it's worth, the thesis of the 'switch' page that the post references
is "You're running CentOS, and aren't paying anyone for support, why should
you consider Oracle Linux?"

If you're looking for content on "Why run Oracle Linux rather than RHEL?", I
think we have a zillion documents I can point you at (oracle.com/linux being a
good starting point).

~~~
buster
To be honest i can only find marketing blabla and a very poorly written pdf.
The only thing that stands out is ksplice (which in itself is a prime example
for Oracle being "evil"!) and a 75% performance boost claim without proof (i
read those claims often on the internet and most of the times they are vastly
exagerated).

~~~
ericd
How is ksplice a prime example of Oracle being evil? I've heard nothing but
good things, and it was an acquisition.

~~~
gaius
Welcome to HN. A photo uploader for hipsters is worth a billion dollars, but
real engineering should be given away for free, 'cos those guys don't need to
eat, right?

~~~
buster
The "real" engineering was done by MIT students. Before Oracle bought ksplice.
You probably didn't notice but the whole thing about linux and this "open
source" everyone is talking about, is about contributing back and community.
Not about buying and shutting down stuff. Guess what Oracle is known for and
what RedHat is known for. Both make money.

~~~
gaius
Haha yeah, call me when your landlord lets you off the rent, because a website
he uses runs Linux on the server. Community, right?

~~~
buster
You still have a long way to go to learn proper trolling on the internet, my
friend

~~~
gaius
You seem to be saying that the Ksplice guys don't deserve to get paid for
their hard work, because "community, maaann". Which is an odd sentiment for a
site based around startup companies, but ho hum. If they had been acquired by
Google would that be any better?

------
larrys
Guess what?

I found this helpful and I'm glad it was posted regardless of whether people
think it's FUD or not. And I'm going to consider running the script and
switching.

Because of this statement:

"Contrast that with the CentOS/RHEL story. If you find yourself needing to buy
support, have fun reinstalling your system with RHEL before anyone will talk
to you."

Thoughts anyone?

I'm seeing the support cost for a single machine is $499 for a year.

[http://www.oracle.com/us/media/calculator/linuxtco/index.htm...](http://www.oracle.com/us/media/calculator/linuxtco/index.html)

(Surprising there is no link on the spiel to support..)

~~~
sciurus
For comparison, here is Red Hat's pricing:
[http://www.redhat.com/resourcelibrary/articles/articles-
red-...](http://www.redhat.com/resourcelibrary/articles/articles-red-hat-
enterprise-linux-purchasing-guide)

------
sciurus
Pointing the the CR repository when arguing that CentOS has timely security
updates seems a little disingenuous; it's opt-in and poorly publicized.

<http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR/>

------
justin66
One ironic thing is that, at present, apparently the only way to run Oracle
Linux without registering an account on oracle.com (and agreeing to an awful
lot of legalese) is to install CentOS first and then use Oracle's little
upgrade script. Unless that somehow requires registration later on.

~~~
wdaher
[https://wikis.oracle.com/display/oraclelinux/Downloading+Ora...](https://wikis.oracle.com/display/oraclelinux/Downloading+Oracle+Linux)

~~~
justin66
Interesting, thank you. I wonder why you can't get there from linux.oracle.com
(or why the mirrors don't all mirror the same stuff). It'll be interesting to
see what the state of Oracle Linux and those wiki pages is a year from now.

------
tapsboy
Oracle is funny.

[http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/10/oracle-nosql-
da...](http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/10/oracle-nosql-database/)

~~~
robert_nsu
I still have a copy of that paper they pulled that "debunks" nosql. I don't
think I'm ever getting rid of it.

~~~
bitwize
They couldn't stick to that position for long. NoSQL is web scale.

------
rbanffy
I believe the best approach for Red Hat now is to re-license as much of its
software as possible under GPLv3 and enjoy watching Oracle trying to handle
the explicit patent grants...

------
fsckin
If Red Hat is so upset about Oracle Linux, bad enough to obfuscate code for
patches, why don't they just offer RHEL for free with paid support?

Seems like a missed opportunity for RH.

~~~
veyron
RHEL sales are a profit center for RH, especially given that its targeted for
enterprise deployments. The cost of the OS isn't the most significant factor
in deploying.

------
nnq
Why doesn't anybody EVEN TRY to make a comparison with Debian Stable or Ubuntu
Server LTS in any of the discussions around this topic I've seen so far?!
Maybe my company wants to switch from CentOS and will go with Ubuntu or
Debian. Shouldn't Oracle guys try and convince me to go their way instead?
(This "over-targeted" approach from the Oracle marketing guys seems more like
an anti-CentOS campaign than a pro OL one in this context... and they seem to
compare with RHEL only on price - 0 vs something - because they know they are
otherwise out of their league).

It's not like these alternatives are not in the same league now, with the
latest 2 Ubuntu Server LTS seen as rock solid by most and good commercial
support available...

~~~
lmm
Debian/Ubuntu are not competing in the same space. The only reason you
would've been running CentOS in the first place would be if you needed redhat
compatibility, most likely so you could run a commercial application that was
only supported on redhat, most likely an application from oracle themselves.

~~~
nnq
I know what you mean (though lots of people run CentOS/RHEL simply because
they got used to it and Debian/Ubuntu Server was not perceived as stable
enough some time ago so they first started deployment), but there's no reason
for a company with Oracle's resources not to try and make a true general
purpose server Linux distro... otherwise they'll just wake up to a future when
their customers will ask them for debian binaries and support for them and
they will have to provide this in order to keep their customer base growing,
and when they'll go this way, their whole Linux business will roll faster and
faster on the downward slope... I never understood why big corporations have
such short sighted strategies. I understand that focusing on short them profit
would make sense for a startup, but a company like Oracle should really be
aiming for long term growth (after they clean their "evil" image, if they ever
manage to do this)...

~~~
lmm
There's no benefit to Oracle in providing a general purpose server linux to
compete with Debian, because there's no profit in it. They're providing this
linux primarily so they can sell a vertically integrated stack with their
applications on the top, and secondarily to get some revenue from the kind of
companies that insist on big name support for anything they use. Debian does
not compete in that market, and they're unlikely to have customers demand
debian binaries because the kind of companies that run debian don't run oracle
applications.

------
drivingmenuts
How long before Oracle realizes they're giving something away for free and
then tries to monetize their Linux software?

------
sidcool
"It can only be viewed as the hubris we have come to expect from Oracle"

Exact my feelings

------
keithpeter
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4260716>

Significant explorations of the issues already started.

------
splicer
Well, at least the FUD is an attempt to get people to switch from Linux to
Linux, rather than Linux to Windows. Remember the "Get The Facts" campaign?

------
stcredzero
A very mobile unfriendly site. Zoom is disabled for the iPhone. This renders
landscape mode useless for this site.

------
zcvosdfdgj
so oracle says during 2011, centos was slow with updates.

Centos responds: no we weren't.. look at this chart of 2012

CentOS was terrible with updates during 2011.. and there's no guarantee that
it won't happen again (after all, it isn't paid support). 2011 is the reason
why I deployed several RHEL webservers instead of centos recently.

~~~
AjithAntony
Scientific Linux <https://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/faq/errata>

Q. After RedHat releases a security errata, how long until it shows up in
Scientific Linux's errata? A. Within a couple days.

Q. That seems like a long time for errata, why so long? A. RedHat is not
perfect, and sometimes their errata completely break programs.

Q. What happens when the people recompiling the errata go on vacation? A.
Because these security errata are part of Fermilab's security procedures, the
entire Scientific Linux development team is not allowed to go on vacation at
the same time. So there will always be at least one main developer able to do
recompiles.

~~~
jlgreco
I really don't understand why more people don't use Scientific Linux instead
of CentOS. Mostly just name recognition I wager.

~~~
rbanffy
AFAIK, it's different enough from RHEL that some binary-distributed software
breaks. I never had much trouble with it, but I try to keep enough distance
from distro details as not having to worry too much whether it is a Red Hat or
a Debian I am using.

