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.
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.
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.
I don't disagree with anyone that is wary of Oracles motivation with this product. I also don't disagree that the product itself is nice. But given Oracles known interactions and history with open source an attitude of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" isn't unwarranted.
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'.
I don't think Android's developers should feel super duper sad that they killed Meego's chances of rising from obscurity.
This can be interpreted as an attempt to suck the air out of CentOS and Red Hat at the same time. Considering Oracle's past, the hypothesis cannot be ruled out easily.
We use CentOS on basically all of our Linux servers, so it seems appropriate to support the project financially.
Could be a way to kill MySQL ;-)
Do you know ANYTHING about CentOS ?
They aren't exactly the most open and accommodating OSS project around. And with the very worrying communication issues around that developer who went AWOL I am surprised you think Oracle would give them any money at all.
Yes I know a thing or two about CentOS
Yes, they had that issue. And some people switched to Scientific Linux. That is not different than relying on Oracle and find out overnight that management changed and now the project is discontinued. In large companies whole department get laid off and focus changes.
Has Oracle tried to help. How about a donation first.
> I am surprised you think Oracle would give them any money at all.
I would be surprised but not for the same reason, but just because it is Oracle. It doesn't exactly have a good standing with the open source community. If it donated, I would be shocked. Instead if chooses to trample.
CentOS is well known, used by many, it had its issues, and it seems to me Oracle instead of trying to help is trying to strangle is replace it. I don't see that as a good move.
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.
I thought they just copied RHEL, exactly how CentOS & Scientific Linux did.
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."
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).
Ksplice is an open source extension of the Linux kernel ... It was developed by Ksplice, Inc. until 21 July 2011, when Oracle acquired Ksplice and started offering support for Oracle Linux. Support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was dropped and turned into a free 30-day trial for RHEL customers as an incentive to migrate to Oracle Linux Premier Support.
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."
I'm seeing the support cost for a single machine is $499 for a year.
(Surprising there is no link on the spiel to support..)
Seems like a missed opportunity for RH.
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...
Exact my feelings
Significant explorations of the issues already started.
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.
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.