__/ [ BearItAll ] on Monday 19 February 2007 11:45 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> An "Unbreakable MySQL" is unlikely to materialise
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Like all proprietary software vendors, Oracle is under increasing
>> | pressure from shareholders to prove that its business is strong enough
>> | to sustain growth in the face of increasing interest in open source
>> | among its core enterprise customers. This particular round of
>> | sabre-rattling may come at a sensitive time for MySQL, which,
>> | according to Mickos, is close to announcing an IPO.
>> `----
>>
>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/BA1DFC4CEC901488CC257283007840C2
>
> I think we can turn a blind eye to Oracle not being OpenSource at this
> time, it is good for Linux to have them supplying the same power of Oracle
> databases and tools as are currently available for the UNIX platform and on
> Windows Servers too by the way. Remember that they have been putting out a
> commercial Linux version since some time in the 1990s, I bet your left sock
> that many a dbase programmer or support staff has the old Oracle evaluation
> kit set up on a Linux for testing global code off the main system.
>
> Best to not assume Oracle are an enemy just because of they undercutting
> Redhat, currently we have no reason to believe that Oracle will not do a
> better job in the support arena. Their already have in place support teams
> who only need a crayon to scub out the word UNIX from the top of their crib
> page and write Linux underneath it. So the move to Linux support is really
> a very logical one. For those taking up the Oracle support they is actually
> a long list of good reasons on the Oracle site, not pushy bullshitting
> marketing reasons, but actuall real life reasons.
Yes, I agree, but their entry---that which challenged Red Hat---wasn't
elegant. FUD tactics that Ellison used to elevate his product isn't
appreciated either. It makes everyone look bad (think about the Xen fights
between RH and Novell).
That said, Oracle uses Linux on 80% of its servers, according to figures on
their Web site. They also employ a few people who contribute to the Linux
kernel. In fact, they 'stole' quite a few kernel hackers from 'true' Linux
companies.
> Consider this example. You take on a job in a brand new installation, a
> nice Blade cluster, a mega Oracle database, some applications and the
> communications systems to your 5 branches scattered around the world who
> each have a slave server (oh, ok then, we'll let them have a cluster too,
> but it's still just a slave). How much help can Redhat be to you in
> supporting that lot? Not a great deal really. But Oracle already covers
> all of those areas and many more. How ever good we believe ourselves to be,
> we all need help sometimes and Oracle are already geared up to provide that
> help.
Some companies thrive in malice and they use predatory tactics to weaken
their competitors. Some other companies play nice and hope that customer
appreciation (and by no means alienation) will buy loyalty. Oracle and
Microsoft never seem to be self-shamed when they engage in malovalent stuff.
Google took the opposite approach, though it's beginning to change. IBM and
Google are 3rd and 4th for S/W, IIRC, while Oracle and Microsoft are first
and second. I can't remember how Sun fit in. When was the last time Sun
showed an ugly face? I mean, look at how they market Solaris when gunning
for Red Hat customers. I can't see much FUD, threats (think Ballmer), and
vandalism.
--
~~ Greetings
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Somebody, give this politician a wedgie"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/4 Mon Feb 19 07:48 - 07:50 (00:02)
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
