<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Scott Robbins wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20101124165237.GC13006@mail.scottro.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:30:32PM +0000, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 24 November 2010 15:13, Scott Robbins <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:scottro@nyc.rr.com"><scottro@nyc.rr.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
OEL is a funny one. The only reason it exists is to destroy the<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
I have decades of enterprise experience with both corporations and now
choose to use any other FOSS alternative I can find. <br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20101124165237.GC13006@mail.scottro.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">calculation RHEL or OEL seems like peanuts.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
LOL. Yes, literally out loud. It just echoes some of what one our web
developers said.
What worries me is with
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
See my comments above - we haven't seen the end play on this yet.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20101124165237.GC13006@mail.scottro.net"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yeah, see above.
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>