Oracle spreading FUD about CentOS
They are already disliked in the open source community. This is not helping their case. I am not sure what they are going for. This sets them up again as a giant corporation attack the little guy. Geeks and nerds usually hate when little open source projects get attacked.
Why didn't they just offer paid support for CentOS? Why not dedicate full time engineers and donate?
Someone at Oracle needs to be fired over this.
The guy who made the graph which is "spreading FUD about CentOS" responds in the comment section:
http://www.bashton.com/blog/2012/oracle-spreading-fud-about-...
The main problem is that Oracle's open source track record speaks for itself.
Now they suddenly want to play "nice", and so they do it by forking a well respected, volunteer driven distro rather than simply contributing to it and helping streamline the security update process. And then they top it all off with a negative ad campaign.
I'm sorry, but you're still not getting it, Oracle.
Good article.
I think the key sentence is "...if you want the security updates first, the only way to get them is by paying Red Hat for support, not Oracle."
You can also add "if you want additional support, the best way is to pay the much more experienced creator RedHat, not Oracle."
Guess what?
I found this helpful and I'm glad it was posted regardless of whether people think it's FUD or not. And I'm going to consider running the script and switching.
Because of this statement:
"Contrast that with the CentOS/RHEL story. If you find yourself needing to buy support, have fun reinstalling your system with RHEL before anyone will talk to you."
Thoughts anyone?
I'm seeing the support cost for a single machine is $499 for a year.
http://www.oracle.com/us/media/calculator/linuxtco/index.htm...
(Surprising there is no link on the spiel to support..)
Pointing the the CR repository when arguing that CentOS has timely security updates seems a little disingenuous; it's opt-in and poorly publicized.
One ironic thing is that, at present, apparently the only way to run Oracle Linux without registering an account on oracle.com (and agreeing to an awful lot of legalese) is to install CentOS first and then use Oracle's little upgrade script. Unless that somehow requires registration later on.
Oracle is funny.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/10/oracle-nosql-da...
I believe the best approach for Red Hat now is to re-license as much of its software as possible under GPLv3 and enjoy watching Oracle trying to handle the explicit patent grants...
If Red Hat is so upset about Oracle Linux, bad enough to obfuscate code for patches, why don't they just offer RHEL for free with paid support?
Seems like a missed opportunity for RH.
Why doesn't anybody EVEN TRY to make a comparison with Debian Stable or Ubuntu Server LTS in any of the discussions around this topic I've seen so far?! Maybe my company wants to switch from CentOS and will go with Ubuntu or Debian. Shouldn't Oracle guys try and convince me to go their way instead? (This "over-targeted" approach from the Oracle marketing guys seems more like an anti-CentOS campaign than a pro OL one in this context... and they seem to compare with RHEL only on price - 0 vs something - because they know they are otherwise out of their league).
It's not like these alternatives are not in the same league now, with the latest 2 Ubuntu Server LTS seen as rock solid by most and good commercial support available...
How long before Oracle realizes they're giving something away for free and then tries to monetize their Linux software?
undefined
"It can only be viewed as the hubris we have come to expect from Oracle"
Exact my feelings
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4260716
Significant explorations of the issues already started.
Well, at least the FUD is an attempt to get people to switch from Linux to Linux, rather than Linux to Windows. Remember the "Get The Facts" campaign?
A very mobile unfriendly site. Zoom is disabled for the iPhone. This renders landscape mode useless for this site.
so oracle says during 2011, centos was slow with updates.
Centos responds: no we weren't.. look at this chart of 2012
CentOS was terrible with updates during 2011.. and there's no guarantee that it won't happen again (after all, it isn't paid support). 2011 is the reason why I deployed several RHEL webservers instead of centos recently.