Fate of RedHat

[Steve]

Dont get me wrong, I've had enough swearing at Oracle installations as 
well (tho mostly under solaris - suprisingly the linux installation I did 
went suprisingly well - but then, I was expecting the wrost)

Enough infact to quite happily tell anyone even thinking of using Oracle 
to investigate other alternatives extensivly before going down that track, 
but if there was no other option - then advising on using a supported OS 
is also topmost on a list of recommendations for just this reason.

_when_ it turns to crap the Oracle peeps cant weasle out of it.

This is rather seriously off topic for these lists however and it may be 
an idea to just let this thread die.

In Summary,

* I firmly believe Redhat showing a "more commercial" front is the right 
thing that has to happen for linux to move past the "SME/Home user" 
environment in any big way.

* Oracle Sux - just say NO to Oracle.

* There are enough different linux versions for everyone to be able to get 
the combinations they want - lets not be finatical and laude each 
distribution for what it brings to the market place.

* My similarity with the thoughts of marketing people disturbs me as well, 
I would just like to say that while I can explain how they think I dont 
necessarily agree with their thought processes :-)

Oh, and no offence taken by your 'rant' :-)

-- 
Steve.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Ravi Verma wrote:

> Dear Steve:
> 
> I apologize if my ranting offended you. I have not slept for the past
> two days courtesy poor packaging from Oracle Corporation. We have
> Jboss(www.jboss.org) to compare with Oracle Application Server. I do not
> know if you have experience with both. If you have detailed exposure to
> both, you would agree that choosing Oracle Application Server over Jboss
> is not a smart thing. During installation when you have to change disks,
> Oracle Installer does not release the CDROM device. You have to install
> from the hard-drive. Please note that I did not use a word like "brain
> dead" this time. That would be ranting.
> 
> Regarding your response, I am mildly surprised at the uncanny similarity
> between your thoughts and what Oracle marketing has to say about this
> issue. 
> 
> You may also note that Oracle Database 10g installed on the
> "unsupported" version of Linux without a hitch. I wonder what is
> "unsupported" Linux. Does RedHat has its own "supported" Linux?
> 
> Once again I apologize for my ranting. My recent experience is fritingly
> similar to what happened when Solaris came along. These were the same
> language that we heard as to why it was imperative for certain software
> to run on "supported" Unix like Solaris and not on the Berkeley Unix.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Ravi Verma
> 0019167053261
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: redhat-list-admin at redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-admin at redhat.com]
> On Behalf Of Steve
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:38 PM
> To: redhat-list at redhat.com
> Cc: lug-nuts at saclug.org
> Subject: RE: Fate of RedHat
> 
> 
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Ravi Verma wrote:
> 
> > Dear Friends:
> > 
> [ fanatical rant snipped ]
> 
> Possibly is is so that Oracle (who's market is not the general home user
> 
> or small business, but rather the larger business sector) can ensure
> that 
> their software will be installed on a system that they know will have 
> support from another commercial entity.
> 
> While it will not be foolproof - it will mean that if something is found
> to be an OS bug then Oracle can say to the customer "I would suggest
> that you take this up with your OS vendor to fix" and leave it at that
> instead of getting into the OS market and having to release "Oracle
> patches" to the customers OS.
> 
> If you dont like it - then use another database product, switch to
> debian, 
> go the unsupported route, but ranting like this just shows your lack of 
> understanding of the requirements of the larger business sector and how 
> they differ from smaller organisations. Complaining to the redhat
> mailing 
> list is probably not going to get any of your issues solved.
> 
> At least the larger corporates like Oracle have started to recognise
> that 
> Linux is a viable OS and has reached maturity - and are supporting it as
> 
> best they know how - who knows, if other Linux OS vendors prove to have
> a 
> stable and _supported_ (read: commercially) platform then you may find 
> that these get Oracle ports as well - and this in turn leads to the 
> ability to run it on unsupported linux distributions as well. As linux 
> advocates we should be thankful for this, it shows that we are doign 
> things right and that we are getting the word out there. Give the market
> 
> time and be thankful in the fact that we are further along and have more
> 
> commercial support than we did 13 years ago.
> 
> Ranting like this really achieves nothing except to show your lack of 
> understanding.
> 
>