Oracle and Unbreakable Linux III

November 2, 2006 Leave a comment

This is turning out to be a hotter topic than I had anticipated, so I figured I post some additional thoughts I have. First, I'll expand on some comments I made in previous posts. Looking at the numbers it seems that Oracle accounts for about 15% of the RHEL business. Substantial, but not devastating. I also have two additions to my previous pricing comments. It should be noted that no enterprise customers pay (anywhere near) the published retail price for RHEL. That price is if you purchase a single license and have no existing relationship with Red Hat. Having dealt with Red Hat on behalf of many companies, depending on quantity the discounts can be significant. Moving back to Oracle, I'm still not convinced their customers are that price sensitive to the Linux bit of the equation. Looking at a loaded Oracle + RHEL solution for a quad processor box and you come up with roughly $200,000. Even at list price the Linux bit of that is close to $2,000 (RHEL AS is either $1,500 or $2,500, depending on support level). You have to wonder if Oracle customers will start looking closer at Oracle prices in general. In the end, this could result in those customers asking the hard questions and driving the price of other Oracle products down.
On another cost-related note, most external applications that an enterprise is going to be using are going to be certified against RHEL or SLES. Until (and indeed if) that certification is also applied directly to the Oracle product, it's always possible that odd and hard to track down bugs will be encountered. The same goes with any internally developed applications. The entire Q/A process will have to begin from scratch on the Oracle product. Additionally, if you already have an install base of RHEL and then add some Oracle, all new Q/A will need to be done twice to ensure things will work reliably and as expected. That Q/A cost alone, along with the uncertainty of how well Oracle will even be able to support Linux may keep many customers with Red Hat, at least for the short to mid term. It should be interesting to see if vendors like BEA and IBM certify against the Oracle product. Ubuntu is also trying to move into this space. In my opinion, 3 is the absolute maximum number of Linux vendors that many enterprise application vendors will be willing to certify. Who those 3 will be remains to be seen.
In the end, as I mentioned previously, I think this move really validates the Open Source model. The backing of Oracle at this level should rapidly further the uptake of Linux in the space, even if it's not via an Oracle solution. People don't want to be beholden to a single vendor any longer, and transitioning from RHEL to Oracle or Oracle to RHEL (or even using a mix of the two) will be much easier and less expensive then completely switching platforms (say, from Windows to Linux).
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source, Oracle, Red Hat

Oracle and Unbreakable Linux II

October 30, 2006 Leave a comment

I'm back from LWE UK and have had some more time to think about this. First, I still think Novell was the biggest loser here, not Red Hat. As Unbreakable Linux is basically a RHEL clone, it has further validated RHEL as the Enterprise “standard”. I think that will likely make selling non-RHEL solutions more difficult. Novell is going to have to be really compelling to get business now. I had wondered if Red Hat would lower prices in response to the Oracle move, but CEO Matthew Szulik has gone on record as saying they will not. We'll see if they keep that stance over the next two quarters or so. I also still feel that Red Hat should bring back an “updates only” product in the price range of $40-60/year/server back. They really lost a lot of fans and goodwill when they dropped RHL, but I think if the pitch is right many of them would come back. While RHEL is nice, it's out of the price range of many SMB's. If I were Red Hat that's not a market I would want to let another Linux company get a solid footing in (as of now no Linux company has any really dominance in this space). I think it's also a product that could sell well against Vista.
With the history Oracle has, one has to wonder if one of the main objectives for this announcement was to tank the Red hat stock price and make it an attractive acquisition target. The stock indeed tanked 25% on the news, but has been slowly chipping its way back up. Red Hat has announced a $325 million stock buy back as a result. If Oracle is in the Linux distro business for the long haul, you have to wonder how much penetration they can get from outside current customers. While this is a profitable segment for RHAT, it's certainly no death knell. Oracle seems to have put themselves in an odd position. If they do gain wild success they will end up losing the base of their own product. I'd guess that's a result of this being an emotional reaction to the Red Hat JBoss acquisition and not a well thought out business decision. An Oracle “appliance” that came with RHEL and Oracle preinstalled with support for the entire thing by Oracle would have been a much better solution IMHO, but that's just not Larry's style.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source, Oracle

Oracle and Unbreakable Linux

October 26, 2006 Leave a comment

Looks like some of the recent rumors were at least partially true. While Oracle is not going to release their own distribution, they are going to be offering support for RHEL. From the article:
I'm here at Oracle “Open” World, and am a bit shocked by what I'm seeing. Oracle, longtime partner to Red Hat, is rolling out the next phase of its Unbreakable Linux program, designed to kill Red Hat and Novell (whatever Larry Ellison might say to the contrary). With partners like Oracle, who needs competitors?
Now, Oracle will say that it's offering a level of support unmatched by Red Hat, and it will also say that this program is not designed to kill Red Hat. Maybe. I talked with some Oracle employees, and they were convincing that some Oracle customers have complained about Red Hat's service/support.
It's interesting to see a company like Oracle pitching their solution as a low cost one, as they're typically one of the most expensive solutions available. This move does seem to further validate that Open Source is good for the customer. They get their choice of support with much lower migration pain than with proprietary solutions. Whether Oracle is able to offer better support for a Red Hat product than Red Hat can remains to be seen, but this move should have a definitive impact on the market (even if just from a Wall Street perspective). First, in the short term I'd actually expect RHEL sales to go up. It should also impact how Red Hat does business. I have heard an increased amount of grumbling about Red Hat support recently, hopefully this will serve as a wakeup call. Red Hat also seems to be losing focus a little bit. Fedora is still struggling in my opinion and I don't think it's getting the uptake they expected. I'd also expect this move by Oracle to impact pricing. On the low end I think $799 per year is indeed too expensive for a minimally supported Linux install. We'll see if that price comes down at all with the release of RHEL 5. Also, Oracle is offering maintenance without support (ie you just get patches). This is something a lot of clients want and something Red Hat hasn't offered since RHL. I'd like to see that product return to the RHAT suite. Something along the lines of $75/year seems fair. Note that Oracle is also offering a “free binary” release, which is something I don't expect Red Hat to follow on (nor do I think they need to).
Red Hat has responded to this with an Unfakeable Linux jab. In the end, the Enterprise Linux space is heating up, which should be good for Linux itself and good for users. I suspect in the short and mid term it will also be good for RHAT. The one loser here could be Novell, who has struggled on executing what I think is a solid plan. How much longer they can afford to do that remains to be seen.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Final LinuxWorld UK Reminder

October 24, 2006 Leave a comment

A final reminder that LQ will be in the .Org Village at the upcoming LinuxWorld UK. If you'll be anywhere near London on the 25th or 26th, make sure to stop into Olympia 2 and say hello. My plane leaves in a couple hours, but I don't land in the UK until tomorrow. If you'll be around and would like to connect, feel free to either email me or leave a comment here. See you on the other side of the pond.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, LinuxWorld, Main Page, Open Source

Why Has Microsoft Abandoned the Power User?

October 20, 2006 Leave a comment

That's the questions posed by Preston Gralla in this editorial. From the post:
The upcoming final releases of Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7 make one thing exceedingly clear: Microsoft has abandoned the power user, allowing fewer and fewer customizations and tweaks. By doing this, they’re leaving behind a very loyal audience.
Internally, Microsoft has created a mythical typical user it calls “Abby” who knows very little about computers. It now targets the operating system and browser at this imaginary Abby, potentially leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
I've not seen Vista, but after recently using IE7, I can say it's clear that they are trying to dumb things down a bit. Microsoft is in a tough spot in this regard. On the one hand, power users are in the vast minority… but it's a vocal and influential minority. Losing the power user is something I don't think Microsoft can afford to do at this point. They may have lost sight of that. Tim brings up an interesting point too. Has Microsoft thrown in the towel, and admitted that the PC is now furniture, and that the frontier of innovation has moved on? If so, that does bode extremely well for the “web as a platform” meme. I think people will always want some measure of control though, especially the power users. There's an innate desire to tinker in some people, and that's not going away any time soon. Linux maintains the “make easy things easy, and hard things possible” way of thinking and hopefully always will. I wonder how long it will take for the Windows power users to take notice.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The truth about the SCOX/EV1 SCOsource deal

October 19, 2006 Leave a comment

For the first time in a long time, we have multiple SCO stories in the same month. Groklaw now has the gory details on how the SCOsource deal with EV1 went down. Here's the full (PDF) declaration from EV1 CEO Robert Marsh. It's clear that he was duped by SCO, that he really did have the best intentions for his customers in mind and that he very quickly regretted the decision. Disclosure: At the time this happened, I was in negotiations with EV1 to potentially enter into a trade agreement where they would provide a server or two to LQ in exchange for advertising. When the SCOsource deal was announced I immediately terminated the negotiations. I made that decision with the information I had at the time. In the end I chose not to enter into an agreement with anyone (a decision I do not regret). Here are a few tidbits from the linked document:
Although Mr. Langer had stated in his January 13, 2004, letter that we would discuss the alternatives and solutions available to EV1, Mr. Langer made it clear from the beginning of our discussions that there was only one course that would satisfy SCO: EV1's agreement to purchase a Linux license from SCO called SCOsource. There was not any discussion of any alternative other than a SCOsource license or litigation.
In describing the infringement in Linux as pervasive, Mr. Langer and the others never expressed any doubt as to the strength or certainty of their claims. The impression I received was that it was only a matter of time before SCO would prevail in its lawsuits against various Linux companies and users. They also told me that many other companies would be sued in the immediate future.
Mr. Langer or others representing SCO told me that a lawsuit against EV1 or our customers could result in a temporary restraining order or an injunction mandating an immediate shut-down of EV1Server.net's Linux servers. I take great pride in the consistency and reliability of our hosting infrastructure, qualities for which EV1Servers.net are well-known in the industry. A shut-down, or even the possibility of one, would have been severely damaging to our hosting business. I felt pressure and urgency to avoid that outcome.
I was given a brief opportunity to review the joint press release before it was issued, but did not fully consider Mr. McBride's statement before giving my approval. Mr. McBride's statement was a mischaracterization of our decision. During negotiations, I told Mr. Langer that my decision was based solely on business considerations. There was never any understanding on my part that EV1 was endorsing the validity of SCO's copyright claims.
Within an hour of the issuance of the March 1, 2004, press release, I began to receive criticism from my customers over my decision to purchase a license from SCO. Many of my customers considered EV1's payment for the license tantamount to funding SCO's litigation efforts and its attack on Linux. The criticism intensified over the ensuing weeks. We received hate-mail from people interpreting our agreement as validating or endorsing SCO. We were accused of betraying our customers and aligning ourselves with a company considered to be the enemy of the open source community. Some of our customers threatened to, and did, leave EV1Servers.net. I did not anticipate the overwhelmingly negative response from our customer base. In agreeing to purchase the SCOsource license, I believed that I was serving the interests of our customers by shielding them from SCO's threats of litigation. Ironically, although my intention was to take EV1 and our customers out of the fray, my decision resulted in EV1 being placed at the center of it. As reported in a March 25, 2004, article in InfoWorld, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 8, I stated, “All of a sudden we went from being reasonably good guys to being, in some people's eyes, akin to the devil.”
On March 25, 2004, I stated publicly that I regretted my decision to purchase a SCOsource license. As reported in various publications, I stated, “Would I do it again? No. I'll go on the record as saying that. I certainly know a lot more today than I knew a month ago, in a lot of respects.”
As I said, it's clear that he was mislead by SCO and that he 100% regretted the decision almost immediately. We also learn that the actual amount paid by EV1 was $800,000. I don't know how some people from SCO sleep at night, but I hope Robert Marsh has a clear conscious. While he clearly made an expensive mistake, it was a well intentioned business minded decision. It's very hard to fault him for that, and I for one don't. EV1 (now merged) remains one of the largest Linux hosting facilities on the planet. Good for them.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Flash 9 Linux Beta Is Live II

October 19, 2006 1 Comment

A follow up to this post. I have installed Flash 9.0 d55 (Firefox 1.5.0.7 for those keeping score) and tested it for a little while. I tried both sites that worked fine for me using Flash 7, and some sites that did not work for me using Flash 7 (Vanguard, Digg and a couple others). I am happy to report that every single site I've tried so far has worked flawlessly. The startup is definitely quicker, I haven't had a single flash induced “hang” yet nor has Firefox crashed. All things told, I'd say this beta is more stable than the “stable” Flash 7 plugin for Linux was. I look forward to the final release, but I'm going to leave the beta installed until that comes out. Once again, kudos to the Flash 9 Linux team.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

IE7 Final Released

October 19, 2006 1 Comment

About 18 months after it was announced, IE7 is now available for download. It looks like it will be rolled out via automatic update “real soon now”. I wasn't going to blog about this, but changed my mind for a couple reasons. First, it impacts LQ. While for October 58% of all LQ visitors are using Firefox, there are still 28% using IE (on a somewhat surprising note, almost 10% of IE users are already at 7 as of yesterday). That means I have to test the site in IE7. Second, I think this is a shining example of why the Microsoft monopoly is bad. The last real release of IE was in 2001. If it weren't for the spectacular success of Firefox, I have no doubt that IE7 would still be years off. Think of how much the web has changed since 2001 and it's nothing short of astonishing that no real updates have been released in that time frame. If you do any kind of design for a high traffic site, you're well aware that the lack of a release isn't because everything works perfectly. To be honest, we gave up on IE-only fixes a while ago at LQ. We do make sure everything *works*, but some things look odd in IE (and only IE).
So far, the anecdotal reports I'm seeing don't instill a whole lot of confidence. I decided to fire up VMWare and install IE7, both to test LQ and to just check it out in general. The install is a bit odd. The first thing it did was download “updates” (how many updates can there be for a product released less than 24 hours ago). Then, it just sort of hung. No real progress bar or status indicator. Since I don't use Windows for actual work I just let it sit there. It did eventually indicate the install was successful about 15 minutes later, but if that was my main workstation I don't know if I would have waited that long. One reboot later, the install was done. I have to admit I only tested things for about 15 minutes, but the biggest two letdowns are that the oddities in the rendering of LQ are still there and the interface is absolutely horrific. It's possibly the hardest to use app I've seen out of Redmond. It may be that I just need to get used to the UI and then it will be great, but luckily for me I don't need to find out. On the up side, the rendering engine is definitely faster than IE 6 and the handling of RSS feeds is much improved. It should be interesting to watch as IE7 gets rolled out en masse over the next few weeks. Will it be a smooth transition or will the Internet be filled with complaints over broken and semi-functional web sites. As the web becomes more and more critical to peoples lives and businesses, this kind of things matters more and more. On that note, Firefox 2 is in late release candidate shape and should be ready for release very soon.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Flash 9 Linux Beta Is Live

October 18, 2006 2 Comments

I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but a publicly available beta of Flash 9 for Linux is now available. Kudos to the Adobe Linux Flash team for the hard work. From the linked blog post:
While we are still working out exactly how to distribute the final Player version to be as easy as possible for the typical end user, this beta includes 2 gzip'd tarball packages: one is for the Mozilla plugin and the other is for a GTK-based Standalone Flash Player. Either will need to be downloaded manually via the Adobe Labs website and unpacked. The standalone Player (gflashplayer) can be run in place (after you set its executable permission). The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory.
This release has been anticipated for a while now. Before you install it I'd recommend reading the Beta Release Notes. That being said, go get it! Quality bug reports are key, so if you run across something make sure to report it.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

McAfee, Symantec Think Vista Unfair: Update

October 17, 2006 Leave a comment

A follow up to this post. It looks like Microsoft has done an about-face, and will allow kernel level access in Vista. From the article:
Microsoft Now Decides to Accept Outside Security for Vista
Until now, Microsoft had planned to block those companies from installing their products in the deepest levels of the new operating system, which is scheduled for release early next year.
Microsoft's shift means that users would continue to have a choice in the programs they use to protect their computers and not be tied to something that Microsoft offers.
I'd guess that Microsoft was just testing the water here, seeing what they could get away with. While the advertisement of their security and anti-virus products at system boot seems way over the top, denying kernel level access is much more reasonable (once again, as long as all of their products also play by those same rules). What is Symantec and McAfee going to do if Microsoft is ever able to create an OS that is reasonably secure? Why is it that some anti-virus vendors had absolutely no problem with this? In the end, Microsoft probably lost two close allies and business partners here, but in the short term neither McAfee or Symantec can do much damage to Microsoft. In the long run though, the gradual erosion of application vendors will be a devastating loss for Microsoft. One of the real and legitimate knocks on Linux is the lack of application support. As Microsoft slowly assails on nearly every business parter (and even channel partner) it has, more and more vendors will be looking to move to an alternative stack. Linux is ready and waiting.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →