[CLUE-Talk] Upcoming Oracle presentations question

[Nate Duehr]

On Monday 01 March 2004 08:57 pm, Jeff Cann wrote:
> On Monday 01 March 2004 3:28 pm, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Jeff Cann wrote:
> > > On Sunday 29 February 2004 4:01 pm, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > >> I still want to know why they don't officially support Debian Linux.
> > >> (At least the "stable" branch.)
> > >
> > > However, because of the indeterminate number of possible
> > > distributions and Oracle's desire to see customers succeed it is
> > > necessary to
> > > confine enterprise class support to those distributions that Oracle
> > > believes
> > > can be successfully deployed in enterprise class environments.
> >
> > Gee, I'll go let the folks I know that run hundreds of Debian machines
> > in "enterprise-class environments" that they should shut their machines
> > off and move to RedHat.
> >
> > Pure unadulterated FUD.
>
> I disagree.  It's written to be read by CTO's, not techies.  

When I call up and ask for support they'll read it to me.  It's a business 
stance, not a "message for a particular person".

> To CTOs, 
> 'enterprise' does not include newsgroups and google for support.  Thus,
> they distinguish the 'commercial' distros.

And they're wrong.  There's virtually zero technical difference between their 
blessed "commercial" distros and many others.

> You must have skipped over this part:
>
> <quote>
> Oracle's products can be downloaded and installed on any Linux
> distribution. Oracle publishes the kernel configuration information so
> customers may choose to deploy Oracle on any Linux distribution, including
> ,one of their own making.
> </quote>

No I didn't miss that part at all - we're talking about SUPPORT not what you 
can LOAD it on.  If you call Oracle and tell them you're working on a problem 
on Debian servers, they'll try to help, but any really difficult problems 
arise -- they'll tell you to pound sand.  

I'm sure "money talks" here... if you had 200 machines with licensed copies of 
their database product on them running Debian, they'd be more likely to help 
you anyway.

You're being an apologist for them when true engineering and logic show that 
those "enterprise class" distros use the exact same kernel code the others 
do.

(Disregarding RedHat fiddling with a limited number of beta-quality kernel 
patches in production kernels for odd-ball hardware support... "tg3" driver 
circa RH 8.0 and Compaq hardware, anyone?  Painful.)

What is the difference between supporting RH and UnitedLinux and supporting 
Debian and why is this so difficult a concept for companies like Oracle to 
grasp?  That's my real question.  And why do so many otherwise technically 
excellent people apologize for it in the industry?  That's not unbiased 
technical assessment.  Linux is Linux.  Distro wars are retarded.  Choice, 
however... is good.

My theory?  The QA manager at Oracle doesn't have enough experience with Linux 
to realize there's no difference.  So like thousands of clueless newbies who 
used to install RH on their home machines because "RedHat = Linux", they make 
the same uneducated decision... and the person that made that decision feels 
justified in it because they "mitigated risk" that simply wasn't there in the 
first place, but their limited experience with Linux limited their decision.  

I think the theory someone else proposed that RedHat and UnitedLinux probably 
paid to play in the Oracle playground is fairly likely.  I hadn't considered 
that possibility, but that sounds more reasonable than any technical reason 
I've ever seen anyone come up with.

-- 
Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com