Hello CentOS Guys,
What do you think about the Oracle Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel?
Since Release 2 of the UEK Kernel, all updates are available free of charge > http://public-yum.oracle.com/
My questions: Does the Oracle UEK kernel really perform better than the default centos kernel? Technical advantages and disadvantages?
Would you use the Oracle UEK Kernel on centos?
-- Chris
Chris wrote:
Hello CentOS Guys,
What do you think about the Oracle Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel?
Since Release 2 of the UEK Kernel, all updates are available free of charge > http://public-yum.oracle.com/
My questions: Does the Oracle UEK kernel really perform better than the default centos kernel? Technical advantages and disadvantages?
Would you use the Oracle UEK Kernel on centos?
Do you understand what OUL is, a modified version of RHEL? And no, I have grave doubts you could use that kernel with the standard repositories for CentOS: I'd give you a 95% confidence that trying to update most things would give you tons of unsatisfied dependencies.
mark "and I wouldn't support Larry Ellison if I have any options"
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
mark "and I wouldn't support Larry Ellison if I have any options"
Yeah, sticking it to the company that's developing and supporting open source GPL Java sounds sensible... *sarcasm*
FC
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:45:35PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
mark "and I wouldn't support Larry Ellison if I have any options"Yeah, sticking it to the company that's developing and supporting open source GPL Java sounds sensible...
This isn't the scientific linux users list and this type of thing isn't going to go over any better here than it did there. Oracle has a well-earned bad reputation for their business practices in their treatment of Redhat and their customers and people in this industry have a long memory. You like Oracle and appear to be a staunch supporter, that's fine. Just please don't expect the vast majority of subscribers to this list to feel the same.
John
2012/7/18 John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:45:35PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
mark "and I wouldn't support Larry Ellison if I have any options"Yeah, sticking it to the company that's developing and supporting open source GPL Java sounds sensible...
This isn't the scientific linux users list and this type of thing isn't going to go over any better here than it did there. Oracle has a well-earned bad reputation for their business practices in their treatment of Redhat and their customers and people in this industry have a long memory. You like Oracle and appear to be a staunch supporter, that's fine. Just please don't expect the vast majority of subscribers to this list to feel the same.
I think they did a great job with btrfs and Oracle Linux for free.
-- Chris
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:03:47AM +0200, Chris wrote:
I think they did a great job with btrfs and Oracle Linux for free.
Uh-huh.
OEL for "free" is a calculated move to poach yet more users from Redhat, and in this specific instance, also _directly_ targeted at CentOS users.
btrfs on its own doesn't make up for a fraction of the ill-will they've garnered in stealing users from Redhat by purposely undercutting Redhat support costs.
Not only biting that hand that feeds you but tearing it off and then beating you with it doesn't earn much good will.
Perhaps if they were actually putting out their _own_ distribution instead of leeching off Redhat's work and then _making money off of it_ it perchance might be a different story.
John
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:09 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
Perhaps if they were actually putting out their _own_ distribution instead of leeching off Redhat's work and then _making money off of it_ it perchance might be a different story.
It's called "free market competition". It brings down costs for the consumer.
Sun took Novell's SuSE Enterprise Desktop for its short-lived Java Desktop System (JDS) Linux.
As long as they comply with the GPL rules, it's all fair game.
FC
On 19-07-12 00:34, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:09 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
Perhaps if they were actually putting out their _own_ distribution instead of leeching off Redhat's work and then _making money off of it_ it perchance might be a different story.
It's called "free market competition".
No it's not. It's called leeching.
It brings down costs for the consumer.
Thanks for a good laugh. The only thing that will happen when companies switch from RHEL to Oracle's EOL is that they will get up-sold like there's no tomorrow and Larry & minions will take them for every penny & first born they got.
Sun took Novell's SuSE Enterprise Desktop for its short-lived Java Desktop System (JDS) Linux.
Iirc there was a commercial arrangement. You know the free market kind where money is paid for goods and services as in the opposite from leeching.
As long as they comply with the GPL rules, it's all fair game.
Larry is that you?
Regards, Patrick
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Patrick Lists centos-list@puzzled.xs4all.nl wrote:
Larry is that you?
ROFL... I use Fedora on desktops. Used Sun JDS before, and SuSE before that. Caldera Openlinux 12 years ago. IBM OS/2 before that.
Today, one of my servers run CentOS. But when I plan to start some commercial services on another server, I plan to purchase an Oracle subscription plan because it´s one third of the RedHat price. Money doesn´t grow on trees for me.
If ORCL gives me support and an optimized kernel, then fair game. Who am I to complain?.
Oracle employees, on Evil Larry´s payroll, also contribute to the Linux kernel and other linux areas as Gnome and drivers.
A simple google search shows ORCL employees on the Gnome mailing lists only:
On the first screen Dermot McCluskey (dermot.mccluskey@or*cle.com) Calum Benson <calum.benson@or*cle.com> Jeff Cai (jeff.cai@or*cle.com) Li Yuan (lee.yuan@or*cle com) Emily Chen yang.chen@or*cle.com Brian Cameron <brian.cameron@or*cle.com> Mike Oliver <mike.oliver@or*cle com>
That sounds to me like contributing, not only "leeching".
But hey, I guess the facts stopped being important long ago, and what matters these days are perceptions and feelings, so it´s cool to "hate evil Larry". Must be why he did the revolutionary (and ahead of its time) low cost "ThinkNIC" computer for educational markets based on Linux and Netscape, 12 years ago.
And I´ll say it again: I run multiple OSs including Fedora, yet while I support Oracle´s open source projects, I´m not particularly interested in any of the firms´ non-free or propietary products geared towards -and priced for- the Fortune 500...
There´s room for everyone in the market... RHEL, CentOS and Oracle Linux... FC
On 07/18/2012 04:45 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
mark "and I wouldn't support Larry Ellison if I have any options"Yeah, sticking it to the company that's developing and supporting open source GPL Java sounds sensible... *sarcasm*
FC
No, java is not open source. Didn't you know that the APIs are patented. You did see that Oracle sued Google for making a Derivative work of java, right? Open source is open source ... this suing people for using open source to create derivative works is buillshit ... however it is standard operating procedure for Oracle.
You did see the majority of the developers for OpenOffice jumped ship and went to LibreOffice as soon as Sun was bought by Oracle, right? Why do you think that is?
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Johnny Hughes wrote:
No, java is not open source. Didn't you know that the APIs are patented. You did see that Oracle sued Google for making a Derivative work of java, right? Open source is open source ... this suing people for using open source to create derivative works is buillshit ... however it is standard operating procedure for Oracle.
So how does iced-tea fit into this picture?
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------
On 07/19/2012 09:53 AM, Keith Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Johnny Hughes wrote:
No, java is not open source. Didn't you know that the APIs are patented. You did see that Oracle sued Google for making a Derivative work of java, right? Open source is open source ... this suing people for using open source to create derivative works is buillshit ... however it is standard operating procedure for Oracle.
So how does iced-tea fit into this picture?
It fits in fine until Oracle decides that it wants to sue because they think there is some money to be made. Then APIs are patentable, GPL does not give patent permissions, etc. The lawsuits will then fly.
If Android was not wildly popular, Oracle would not have done anything about it. Since it is, they want $$$.
If they think there is $$$ for them, they will pull the same thing again in a heartbeat ... be it Java or MySQL or Berkley DB. They gave up Open Office to the Apache Foundation because of the mass exodus of developers, or it would be in the same boat. I just do not trust them.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 07/19/2012 09:53 AM, Keith Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Johnny Hughes wrote:
No, java is not open source. Didn't you know that the APIs are patented. You did see that Oracle sued Google for making a Derivative work of java, right? Open source is open source ... this suing people for using open source to create derivative works is buillshit ... however it is standard operating procedure for Oracle.
So how does iced-tea fit into this picture?
It fits in fine until Oracle decides that it wants to sue because they think there is some money to be made. Then APIs are patentable, GPL does not give patent permissions, etc. The lawsuits will then fly.
If Android was not wildly popular, Oracle would not have done anything about it. Since it is, they want $$$.
If they think there is $$$ for them, they will pull the same thing again in a heartbeat ... be it Java or MySQL or Berkley DB. They gave up Open Office to the Apache Foundation because of the mass exodus of developers, or it would be in the same boat. I just do not trust them.
And then there's their hardware acquisition, Sun. Tech support for hardware is what I refer to as self-abuse. Just don't buy it.
mark
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
If Android was not wildly popular, Oracle would not have done anything about it. Since it is, they want $$.
Money is so evil! how they dare license a technology... even if it's open source... *sarcasm*
http://www.businessinsider.com/java-inventor-google-totally-slimed-sun-2012-...
Java Inventor: 'Google Totally Slimed Sun' Matt Rosoff | Apr. 30, 2012, 12:38 PM
Java creator James Gosling thinks that Google "totally slimed" Sun by using big parts of Java without paying a license, and says that he agrees with Oracle in the lawsuit between the companies.
That may be a bit surprising, because Gosling quit his job at Sun shortly after Oracle bought the company, and has been critical of Oracle in some blog posts since then. Then, last March, Gosling took a job at Google. He's since quit that job to work for a startup.
Gosling is widely considered the father of Java, as he invented the first version of the Java language and other pieces of the platform back in 1994.
On Saturday, Gosling wrote a brief blog post clarifying his position on the Oracle-Google case after a news article got it wrong.
As he put it:
Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even [then-CEO] Jonathan [Schwartz]: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun.
FC
On 07/19/2012 10:17 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
If Android was not wildly popular, Oracle would not have done anything about it. Since it is, they want $$.
Money is so evil! how they dare license a technology... even if it's open source... *sarcasm*
http://www.businessinsider.com/java-inventor-google-totally-slimed-sun-2012-...
Java Inventor: 'Google Totally Slimed Sun' Matt Rosoff | Apr. 30, 2012, 12:38 PM
Java creator James Gosling thinks that Google "totally slimed" Sun by using big parts of Java without paying a license, and says that he agrees with Oracle in the lawsuit between the companies.
That may be a bit surprising, because Gosling quit his job at Sun shortly after Oracle bought the company, and has been critical of Oracle in some blog posts since then. Then, last March, Gosling took a job at Google. He's since quit that job to work for a startup.
Gosling is widely considered the father of Java, as he invented the first version of the Java language and other pieces of the platform back in 1994.
On Saturday, Gosling wrote a brief blog post clarifying his position on the Oracle-Google case after a news article got it wrong.
As he put it:
Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even [then-CEO] Jonathan [Schwartz]: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun.
Then he also does not understand the GPL.
From the GPL Version 2 preamble:
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
They made Java GPL, not me.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even [then-CEO] Jonathan [Schwartz]: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun.
Then he also does not understand the GPL.
From the GPL Version 2 preamble:
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
They made Java GPL, not me.
You are oversimplifying things here. The phone version of java was never GPL'd. and that is the part that google reverse-engineered . On the other hand, API's can't really be protected because they are two sides of the same thing. If a user is allowed to use one side, someone else has to be allowed to duplicate the other side. Without that concept, linux and the *bsds would never be allowed to duplicate the unix APIs.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
No, java is not open source.
Yes it is.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
They made Java GPL
Yes, you finally understood. Thanks :)
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/ http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/11/12Oracle-and-Apple-Announce-OpenJDK-... http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/l0mx0/twitter_joins_jcp_and_ope... https://dev.twitter.com/blog/twitter-open-source-and-jvm http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/ OpenJDK for the Nokia N9 - MeeGo http://labb.zafena.se/?p=532
But we're drifting topic. OK, let's leave it at that, you hate Oracle and Ellison. Fine.
The OP asked about running Oracle kernel on CentOS, I told him it'd be better to run the full Oracle Linux shebang to avoid any compatibility issues or problems.
I prefer to run both CentOS and ORCL Linux on different machines for different purposes. I don't have much more to say... ;) FC
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
It fits in fine until Oracle decides that it wants to sue because they think there is some money to be made. Then APIs are patentable, GPL does not give patent permissions, etc. The lawsuits will then fly.
You could make exactly that same argument about Linux, and probably on better legal grounds except that SCO ran out of money before winning a case - but somebody, somewhere must own those rights now.
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. At least in the Oracle/java case there are some court decisions falling out that seem to limit the potential damage.
If they think there is $$$ for them, they will pull the same thing again in a heartbeat ... be it Java or MySQL or Berkley DB. They gave up Open Office to the Apache Foundation because of the mass exodus of developers, or it would be in the same boat. I just do not trust them.
The same risk applies to everything, opensource or not. Someone can always appear claiming to own a patent covering the functionality. In most opensource projects, no one checks, and even where they do it is possible to have mistakes or differences of opinion.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
You did see the majority of the developers for OpenOffice jumped ship and went to LibreOffice as soon as Sun was bought by Oracle, right? Why do you think that is?
Like in all events in History, there's two versions of events. Here's Shuttleworth's http://ho.io/libreoffice
It had to do with a faction's vocal opposition to the Sun Contributor Agreement more than anything else.
Oh, and the freedom fighters at LO caused the killing of the commercial build of OO.o, namely StarOffice (which ORCL had renamed "Oracle Open Office" -sans the .org-, and developed in parallel with OO.o, which, at the time of the fork, was at v3.4alpha).
Of course, that's standard procedure for MS-Novell... remeber they were the first to fork OO.o with their "Go-OO" with patches to support MS-OOXML (which Sun refused to include).
But we're drifting off-topic, I fear. Whatever floats your boat. FC
2012/7/18 m.roth@5-cent.us:
Do you understand what OUL is, a modified version of RHEL? And no, I have grave doubts you could use that kernel with the standard repositories for CentOS: I'd give you a 95% confidence that trying to update most things would give you tons of unsatisfied dependencies.
It is very easy without any dependencies to install.
You need only:
[ol6_UEK_latest] name=Latest Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel for Oracle Linux $releasever ($basearch) baseurl=http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/UEK/latest/$basearch/ gpgkey=http://public-yum.oracle.com/RPM-GPG-KEY-oracle-ol6 gpgcheck=1 enabled=1
-- Chris
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Chris xchris89x@googlemail.com wrote:
Does the Oracle UEK kernel really perform better than the default centos kernel? Technical advantages and disadvantages?
This answers some of your questions http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/servers-storage-admin/uek-rel2-ge...
--- About the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel for Oracle Linux
Oracle Linux with the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel is Oracle's fully supported, tested, and certified Linux operating system for the enterprise. Oracle Linux is free to download, use, and distribute, and it is optimized to run Oracle hardware, databases, and middleware. You can obtain ISO images of the installation media from the Oracle Software Delivery Cloud without charge (requires registration).
The Oracle Linux base distribution is 100% userspace-compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). However, the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel is released on an independent schedule and is always based on a recent version of the mainline Linux kernel. As a result, it delivers the latest innovations from mainline Linux, combined with tested performance and stability. It is installed and booted by default; major updates of the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel are usually published every 12 to 18 months. ---
However, I'd suggest that if you want to use Oracle' s kernel, you use Oracle' s Linux distro, which you can also download for free.
Why come here and speak about mixing CentOS with Oracle kernel?. The answers will surely be mostly negative (like going to a Fedora mailing list and asking about using an Ubuntu kernel, or vice-versa). Do you expect the answers to be otherwise?. Seems like trolling to me.
FC
2012/7/18 Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com:
Why come here and speak about mixing CentOS with Oracle kernel?. The answers will surely be mostly negative (like going to a Fedora mailing list and asking about using an Ubuntu kernel, or vice-versa). Do you expect the answers to be otherwise?. Seems like trolling to me.
No, it's not trolling!
I'm really interested in the technical differences and advantages.
-- Chris
-
Chris -
Clive Hills -
Fernando Cassia -
John R. Dennison -
Johnny Hughes -
Keith Roberts -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Patrick Lists