Oracle is shit because they use Red Hat works, providing contract on top of it… and only add UEK as … “better option” …
That’s something they were allowed to do. It’s something everyone was allowed to do. FOSS means free and open source for everyone, even people and organizations you don’t like. Otherwise it’s not really free (as in freedom), now is it?
Also, the “contract on top of it” is this license, which is a pretty short read. In my view it’s a very inoffensive license compared to Red Hat’s coercive license.
Also also, they’re forking Oracle Linux from RHEL as of 9.3, so they’re won’t be “taking” from Red Hat in future anyhow.
They (oracle) do contribute some on mainline kernel, but by making RHEL copy paste and only add UEK and their product… ugh… I don’t know.
It drives me nuts when I see people imply that Oracle was somehow “stealing” from Red Hat by creating a downstream distro. It’s not theft when the thing being taken was free and open source! So Oracle copy-pasted RHEL, made some changes and redistributed it. So what? That’s something everyone was allowed to do, as long as they didn’t violate the open source license while doing it. Oracle isn’t violating the open source licenses, the sources are freely available, so why should I fault them for doing what they did?
I think you’re also overlooking how much Oracle Linux actually benefited Red Hat themselves. By making Oracle Linux a downstream distro and testing all the Oracle software on it, I’d argue that Oracle actually made RHEL more valuable by increasing the number of enterprise workloads RHEL could support. Yes, a customer could theoretically get support from Oracle instead of Red Hat, but hardly anyone actually did that. I see real-world Oracle Database installs every day and the majority of them are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux proper. Very few are on a downstream. Every one of those RHEL installs is a paying Red Hat customer.
Oracle didn’t do all that out of the goodness of their hearts of course, they did it because their customers wanted to standardize on one OS and Oracle wanted to sell them database (and other) software. They did it for profit, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Both Oracle and Red Hat profited from that arrangement. Every enterprise Linux user indirectly benefited from the arrangement too, because it meant there was a less fragmented OS ecosystem to build on! But now Red Hat wants to alter the deal, Vader-style, Oracle is forking Oracle Linux, and you know who loses the most in all of this? All of those users who previously enjoyed the benefit of a less fragmented enterprise OS landscape, myself among them. As far I’m concerned, the blame for that lies squarely at Red Hat’s feet.
The problem that I want to phrase here is, they redistribute the code, but when the problem arise, they open bug ticket in RH Bugzilla, then… asking red hat to fix it… which is… unacceptable… and unprofessional, when they have billion dollars of contract on top of OL… So it’s stealing in my term.
using red hat powerful brand, selling the code, and if it break, only open ticket, never invest in engineer to fix it… :/ If it’s not stealing, I don’t know what it is…
I know it’s GPL and Open Source, and everyone can take it. And Red Hat Works still, open source in CentOS Stream repo… so just fork it, and rebuild it… done… why they wine that Red Hat put code only for customer who pay for it… In the new contract, they only stop supporting customer, if Red Hat deems the code redistribution threaten red hat source of income… so… I don’t know…
GPL is about freedoom to write, contribute, inspect, and fix your own code, but not providing big chunk of code for free, and provide free support service…
That’s what people always miss about… they want Red Hat guarantee of service and SLA, but don’t want to spend a penny… small business, okay… but CIQ and OL have billion dollar of contract, and never contribute anything upstream…
Alma/CloudLinux at least employ full time engineer in Fedora Project as part of join Red Hat and Alma Stewardship, but CIQ/Rocky, and OL isn’t…
That’s something they were allowed to do. It’s something everyone was allowed to do. FOSS means free and open source for everyone, even people and organizations you don’t like. Otherwise it’s not really free (as in freedom), now is it?
Also, the “contract on top of it” is this license, which is a pretty short read. In my view it’s a very inoffensive license compared to Red Hat’s coercive license.
Also also, they’re forking Oracle Linux from RHEL as of 9.3, so they’re won’t be “taking” from Red Hat in future anyhow.
It drives me nuts when I see people imply that Oracle was somehow “stealing” from Red Hat by creating a downstream distro. It’s not theft when the thing being taken was free and open source! So Oracle copy-pasted RHEL, made some changes and redistributed it. So what? That’s something everyone was allowed to do, as long as they didn’t violate the open source license while doing it. Oracle isn’t violating the open source licenses, the sources are freely available, so why should I fault them for doing what they did?
I think you’re also overlooking how much Oracle Linux actually benefited Red Hat themselves. By making Oracle Linux a downstream distro and testing all the Oracle software on it, I’d argue that Oracle actually made RHEL more valuable by increasing the number of enterprise workloads RHEL could support. Yes, a customer could theoretically get support from Oracle instead of Red Hat, but hardly anyone actually did that. I see real-world Oracle Database installs every day and the majority of them are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux proper. Very few are on a downstream. Every one of those RHEL installs is a paying Red Hat customer.
Oracle didn’t do all that out of the goodness of their hearts of course, they did it because their customers wanted to standardize on one OS and Oracle wanted to sell them database (and other) software. They did it for profit, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Both Oracle and Red Hat profited from that arrangement. Every enterprise Linux user indirectly benefited from the arrangement too, because it meant there was a less fragmented OS ecosystem to build on! But now Red Hat wants to alter the deal, Vader-style, Oracle is forking Oracle Linux, and you know who loses the most in all of this? All of those users who previously enjoyed the benefit of a less fragmented enterprise OS landscape, myself among them. As far I’m concerned, the blame for that lies squarely at Red Hat’s feet.
The problem that I want to phrase here is, they redistribute the code, but when the problem arise, they open bug ticket in RH Bugzilla, then… asking red hat to fix it… which is… unacceptable… and unprofessional, when they have billion dollars of contract on top of OL… So it’s stealing in my term.
using red hat powerful brand, selling the code, and if it break, only open ticket, never invest in engineer to fix it… :/ If it’s not stealing, I don’t know what it is…
I know it’s GPL and Open Source, and everyone can take it. And Red Hat Works still, open source in CentOS Stream repo… so just fork it, and rebuild it… done… why they wine that Red Hat put code only for customer who pay for it… In the new contract, they only stop supporting customer, if Red Hat deems the code redistribution threaten red hat source of income… so… I don’t know…
GPL is about freedoom to write, contribute, inspect, and fix your own code, but not providing big chunk of code for free, and provide free support service…
That’s what people always miss about… they want Red Hat guarantee of service and SLA, but don’t want to spend a penny… small business, okay… but CIQ and OL have billion dollar of contract, and never contribute anything upstream…
Alma/CloudLinux at least employ full time engineer in Fedora Project as part of join Red Hat and Alma Stewardship, but CIQ/Rocky, and OL isn’t…