Re: CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

[Rob Kampen <rkampen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott Robbins wrote:

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:30:32PM +0000, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
  

On 24 November 2010 15:13, Scott Robbins <scottro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    

OEL is a funny one. The only reason it exists is to destroy the

upstream. They're completely unlike CentOS in mentality. Their main
reason of existence is cutting RHEL from support revenue. Our PHBs
decided to use OEL for customers since we're an Oracle shop at work so
getting all licences & support from a single source makes accounting
easier. 
    

Oracle and Micro$oft both have similar ethos - their founders must have gone to similar marketing schools and the resulting companies have only one goal in mind - lots of $$$$ with as many curves, hooks and traps as they can get away with.
I have decades of enterprise experience with both corporations and now choose to use any other FOSS alternative I can find.
The Oracle embrace of RHEL will ultimately cause pain and grief to our upstream provider and possibly cause them to make survival decisions that will negatively impact CentOS. I sincerely hope this does not occur but freeloaders that offer nothing back and use FUD marketing are a blight in the industry.
As mentioned in the thread about Novell (that has moved to a poor signal to noise ratio) - here is another company that tried to hook up with Micro$oft and is heading to oblivion. Shame to see this happen to Suse - another distro I used to use.

In our case, it has something to do with support--we are still
discussing this--my own take is that the problem won't be with the
platform, so we should use CentOS, or if management wants to be sure of
paid support, which does make sense, use RH.  Oracle is saying there may
be issues of aspect X not being supported if we don't do all of this on
Oracle. 

In any case, after a typical Oracle Enterprise licence
  

calculation RHEL or OEL seems like peanuts. 
    

LOL.  Yes, literally out loud. It just echoes some of what one our web
developers said.

What worries me is with
  

OEL eating the support revenue from RHEL and simultaneously being
dependent on RHEL for upstream dev & patches, it's not a long-term
viable situation, it's not even a partnership.
    

See my comments above - we haven't seen the end play on this yet.

There are other little things why we would go for OEL, one being the
OCFS2 when we do shared-storage clusters. Reading the small pring
gives you the impression that Oracle won't support OCFS2 unless it's
OEL. I'm not sure that's true but hey, that's what's been decided at
work.
    

Yeah, see above.  
  

begin:vcard
fn:Rob Kampen
n:Kampen;Rob
org:Team Torman Realty
adr:;;13019 Water Point Blvd;Windermere;FL;34786;USA
email;internet:rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel;cell:407-341-3815
version:2.1
end:vcard

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos