Oracle The New King Of Linux And Open Source
youtu.be
Would you trust Oracle to be the leader of the free and open source software world, I certainly wouldn't but they think they're trustworthy and it's absolute...
    • nani8ot@lemmy.mlEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      But Oracle? How are they better in any way? RedHat still writes FOSS software. Oracle just profited off it being easy for RHEL customers to migrate to Oracle Linux. They do add on top of RHEL, but they could built a distro themselves too.

      This article reads to me like satire from Oracle.

      PS: I don’t like what RH done either.

      • Ddhuud@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        IMHO Redhat cloud was just as proprietary as oracle’s. Sure, Redhat was one of (if not the) the greatest contributor to open source, but since acquired by IBM it seems the momentum is going down (I don’t have any data on this, only a few articles like this I’ve reaad)

    • Ddhuud@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      IBM

      Everyone keeps saying redhat this, redhat that as if they’re talking of an independent entity. IBM bought redhat, and probably to run it into the ground too. Fuck IBM.

      By the way, I still don’t believe oracle’s “commitment” to open source, but that writing was a cool slap to IBM’s face.

  • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.comEnglish
    30·
    1 year ago

    Microsoft is probably considering to release an enterprise Linux product right now. Perhaps called Windows Subsystem for Enterprise Linux.

      • kylebaker@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        Canonical has its own issues. Security updates to packages being put behind a paywall called “Ubuntu Pro” even during the LTS window is driving people away from Ubuntu right now as well.

          • kylebaker@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            If you want more info look here: https://ubuntu.com/security/esm

            Imagine if you were trying to keep compliance and suddenly a security update was an ESM package found in the Universe repo? To get that update installed you’d have to pay Ubuntu Pro for each host you have.

            They have a personal license like how Red Hat allows some licenses for personal use so if you have a few home machines it’s fine. But if you have a job that has a fleet? Not a fun time to suddenly need to pay for updates even during LTS window.

        • dragonfly4933@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          31·
          1 year ago

          Tbh, just stop using software well past it’s prime, or pay the cost of developing the fixes.

          Everything can’t be free, at some point it’s gotta cost something.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            1·
            9 months ago

            Everything can’t be free, at some point it’s gotta cost something.

            Not everything is a “fuck you pay me” relationship. Being a dev who for years built a tool used by people on the daily, the entire thing was a labour of love and I was glad others used and improved it.

            I’m sorry you were raised so mercenary. American?

        • Raphael@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          You mean the security updates they get for free from Debian?

          Or are they developing their own security patches and NOT pushing it back upstream?

  • Vamanos@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
    221·
    1 year ago

    Yeah. I wouldn’t say I’m a huge oracle fan - and maybe this is pandering - but ibm’s move was such shit. It’s plain manipulation of gpl terms and does not really honor the intent.

  • bahmanm@lemmy.mlEnglish
    15·
    1 year ago

    Where there’s money, there’s war 😬

    –

    "Can’t you see,

    It all makes perfect sense,

    Expressed in dollars and cents, pennies, shillings and pence.

  • 0x4E4F@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
    164·
    1 year ago

    Oracle does a have a point though, they did release ZFS and BTRFS as open source projects. Granted, RH has done the same with other software packages, but not something as important as a FS. ZFS was a finished product, BTRFS not so much, but still, these 2 are greatly valued in the open source community.

    Not siding with Oracle, I don’t like them one bit, but facts are facts 🤷.

    • emhl@feddit.deEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      Oracle’s implementation of ZFS is Proprietary software. The original version was developed with an open source model By Sun microsystems, which was bought by oracle. And Oracle contributing to the Linux Kernel with BTRFS isn’t that ground breaking

    • Alex@lemmy.mlEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      RedHat are key contributors to a stack of open source projects aside from the kernel itself. For example they are one of the lead contributors to QEMU, far ahead of Oracle.

        • yianiris@kafeneio.social
          1·
          9 months ago

          @corsicanguppy @stsquad

          They were always IBM’s front for open/free code and the undermine of linux. Grew economically more than any Op.Fr. project because of IBM’s consulting and training subcontracts passed under the table. Eventually they were absorbed by their mothership.

      • 0x4E4F@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
        28·
        1 year ago

        I know, but let’s face it, QEMU is not something you absolutely need to run an OS, like an FS for example.

        • Alex@lemmy.mlEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          Linux supports loads of filesystems. ext4 works well for most people and is considerably easier to use without jumping hoops for Oracle’s deliberately misaligned license for ZFS.

          • 0x4E4F@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Everyone knows that, and everyone knows that BTRFS was released under GPL to restore the balance (as well as have the FS maintained and developed for free).

            My point was, Oracle has contributed as well as RH. They offered to make RHEL instead of RH, RH do repacks. IBM is just greedy and we have seen where these sorts of things lead, to a dead company.