Friday, July 14th 2023
Oracle Advocates Keeping Linux Open and Free, Calls Out IBM
Oracle has been part of the Linux community for 25 years. Our goal has remained the same over all those years: help make Linux the best server operating system for everyone, freely available to all, with high-quality, low-cost support provided to those who need it. Our Linux engineering team makes significant contributions to the kernel, file systems, and tools. We push all that work back to mainline so that every Linux distribution can include it. We are proud those contributions are part of the reason Linux is now so very capable, benefiting not just Oracle customers, but all users.
In 2006, we launched what is now called Oracle Linux, a RHEL compatible distribution and support offering that is used widely, and powers Oracle's engineered systems and our cloud infrastructure. We chose to be RHEL compatible because we did not want to fragment the Linux community. Our effort to remain compatible has been enormously successful. In all the years since launch, we have had almost no compatibility bugs filed. Customers and ISVs can switch to Oracle Linux from RHEL without modifying their applications, and we certify Oracle software products on RHEL even though they are built and tested on Oracle Linux only, never on RHEL.
While Oracle and IBM have compatible Linux distributions, we have very different ideas about our responsibilities as open source stewards and about operating under the GPLv2. Oracle has always made Oracle Linux binaries and source freely available to all. We do not have subscription agreements that interfere with a subscriber's rights to redistribute Oracle Linux. On the other hand, IBM subscription agreements specify that you're in breach if you use those subscription services to exercise your GPLv2 rights. And now, as of June 21, IBM no longer publicly releases RHEL source code.
Why did IBM make this change? Well, if you read IBM's blog attempting to explain its rationale, it boils down to this: "At Red Hat, thousands of people spend their time writing code to enable new features, fixing bugs, integrating different packages and then supporting that work for a long time … We have to pay the people to do that work."
Interesting. IBM doesn't want to continue publicly releasing RHEL source code because it has to pay its engineers? That seems odd, given that Red Hat as a successful independent open source company chose to publicly release RHEL source and pay its engineers for many years before IBM acquired Red Hat in 2019 for $34 billion.
The blog goes on to mention CentOS. It is no surprise CentOS was top of mind for the author attempting to justify withholding RHEL source. CentOS had been a very popular free RHEL compatible distribution. In December 2020, IBM effectively killed it as a free alternative to RHEL. Two new alternatives to RHEL have sprung up in CentOS's place: AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. Now, by withholding RHEL source code, IBM has directly attacked them.
And perhaps that is the real answer to the question of why: eliminate competitors. Fewer competitors means more revenue opportunity for IBM.
As for Oracle, we will continue pursuing our goal for Linux as transparently and openly as we always have while minimizing fragmentation. We will continue to develop and test our software products on Oracle Linux. Oracle Linux will continue to be RHEL compatible to the extent we can make it so. In the past, Oracle's access to published RHEL source has been important for maintaining that compatibility. From a practical standpoint, we believe Oracle Linux will remain as compatible as it has always been through release 9.2, but after that, there may be a greater chance for a compatibility issue to arise. If an incompatibility does affect a customer or ISV, Oracle will work to remediate the problem.
We want to emphasize to Linux developers, Linux customers, and Linux distributors that Oracle is committed to Linux freedom. Oracle makes the following promise: as long as Oracle distributes Linux, Oracle will make the binaries and source code for that distribution publicly and freely available. Furthermore, Oracle welcomes downstream distributions of every kind, community and commercial. We are happy to work with distributors to ease that process, work together on the content of Oracle Linux, and ensure Oracle software products are certified on your distribution.
By the way, if you are a Linux developer who disagrees with IBM's actions and you believe in Linux freedom the way we do, we are hiring.
One observation for ISVs: IBM's actions are not in your best interest. By killing CentOS as a RHEL alternative and attacking AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux, IBM is eliminating one way your customers save money and make a larger share of their wallet available to you. If you don't yet support your product on Oracle Linux, we would be happy to show you how easy that is. Give your customers more choice.
Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that you don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how you can save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream distributor of Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the burden.
Source:
Oracle News
In 2006, we launched what is now called Oracle Linux, a RHEL compatible distribution and support offering that is used widely, and powers Oracle's engineered systems and our cloud infrastructure. We chose to be RHEL compatible because we did not want to fragment the Linux community. Our effort to remain compatible has been enormously successful. In all the years since launch, we have had almost no compatibility bugs filed. Customers and ISVs can switch to Oracle Linux from RHEL without modifying their applications, and we certify Oracle software products on RHEL even though they are built and tested on Oracle Linux only, never on RHEL.
Why did IBM make this change? Well, if you read IBM's blog attempting to explain its rationale, it boils down to this: "At Red Hat, thousands of people spend their time writing code to enable new features, fixing bugs, integrating different packages and then supporting that work for a long time … We have to pay the people to do that work."
Interesting. IBM doesn't want to continue publicly releasing RHEL source code because it has to pay its engineers? That seems odd, given that Red Hat as a successful independent open source company chose to publicly release RHEL source and pay its engineers for many years before IBM acquired Red Hat in 2019 for $34 billion.
And perhaps that is the real answer to the question of why: eliminate competitors. Fewer competitors means more revenue opportunity for IBM.
As for Oracle, we will continue pursuing our goal for Linux as transparently and openly as we always have while minimizing fragmentation. We will continue to develop and test our software products on Oracle Linux. Oracle Linux will continue to be RHEL compatible to the extent we can make it so. In the past, Oracle's access to published RHEL source has been important for maintaining that compatibility. From a practical standpoint, we believe Oracle Linux will remain as compatible as it has always been through release 9.2, but after that, there may be a greater chance for a compatibility issue to arise. If an incompatibility does affect a customer or ISV, Oracle will work to remediate the problem.
We want to emphasize to Linux developers, Linux customers, and Linux distributors that Oracle is committed to Linux freedom. Oracle makes the following promise: as long as Oracle distributes Linux, Oracle will make the binaries and source code for that distribution publicly and freely available. Furthermore, Oracle welcomes downstream distributions of every kind, community and commercial. We are happy to work with distributors to ease that process, work together on the content of Oracle Linux, and ensure Oracle software products are certified on your distribution.
By the way, if you are a Linux developer who disagrees with IBM's actions and you believe in Linux freedom the way we do, we are hiring.
One observation for ISVs: IBM's actions are not in your best interest. By killing CentOS as a RHEL alternative and attacking AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux, IBM is eliminating one way your customers save money and make a larger share of their wallet available to you. If you don't yet support your product on Oracle Linux, we would be happy to show you how easy that is. Give your customers more choice.
Finally, to IBM, here's a big idea for you. You say that you don't want to pay all those RHEL developers? Here's how you can save money: just pull from us. Become a downstream distributor of Oracle Linux. We will happily take on the burden.
66 Comments on Oracle Advocates Keeping Linux Open and Free, Calls Out IBM
I give one kudos to Oracle right now, wonder when they will be on the right side a 2nd time...
1. Exploit monopoly position;
2. Hide serious vulnerabilities or bookmarks.
(And for everyone who is feeling the need to chime in with claims that Android is not a Linux distro, shut it. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux himself, has already called Android a Linux distro because *TADA*, it uses the Linux Kernel as a base. Even Google has confirmed this openly.)Hardware drivers do not make an OS. Even if closed source software is installed on Linux, the OS itself is still open and free.
For Linux to thrive as a personal OS, it needs direction and ease of use that no Linux distro offers - at least not for the average Joe who barely knows how to increase volume on PC, let alone something else. SteamOS and Proton are steps in the right direction...
EDIT: there is also matter of "common denominator" that all players on the market take into account - and it is set very low... "Average" user of computer today is nothing like "average" user 10 or 20 years ago... This is digital age, but 95% of people barely know how to opet hotspot on the phone, let alone much more than that. If they can take photos and share them on social networks, it is pinnacle of their usage. In the office, they fill in Excel table, usually with the help of one colleague that knows more, and that is it.
Microsoft embraced that whole-heartedly and keeps dumbing down Windows step-by-step. Now, if one Linux distro that is perfect for personal use even appears, I am pretty sure it will be nothing like I would like it to be...
In a round-about way, this is what Oracle is saying.
Hell, can you imagine that we come to a situation where "one place to download all apps" is preferred and lauded by the majority of tech portals? WTF?
Android can use apps from anywhere, yet for "safety" reasons, the majority of people do not even know that the world outside Play store exists. What is that, if not completely dumbing down everything for sake of "average Joe"?Yes, it sounds simple. But install it on ten PCs / laptops, then count how many times you need to tinker with Bluetooth / Audio / WiFi... Then explain to the average Joe how to run his favorite games... And to make something actually useful in Libre Office... And things get complicated fast, for the average user.
Like I said before, maybe SteamOS is exactly what we need, and step in right direction, but I do not know can Valve pull it alone or find ally in this toxic market...I agree completely.
But in practice, we see that big tech - Apple, Google and Microsoft works very hard to dumb down everything in order to be as accessible as possible. They are not in the business of education and do not care about how much "Average Joe" knows. Plus, it is an easier road for them too...
Actually, there are very, very few examples of big tech companies encouraging consumers to become more tech-literate.
Hell, whole society is being "dumbed down" from the day one of primary school, so why tech world would be different?
Excuse me but WTF. Linux is ten thousand times easier to use than Windows. The installation is far easier to begin with. Most of the software is updated with a single button. Shit doesn't break constantly like it does in Windows, in fact it's hard to break it. It's almost impervious to virus attacks and it's updated more often.Dude, seriously. Linux has zero issues with hardware.
Installation is easy, but not as easy as Windows. Still sometimes runs into trouble with WiFi / Bluetooth / some random stupidity - I understand perfectly that most of the time it is not Linux fault, but average user does not know that.
Most of the software updated with the single button - depending heavily on what you use. In Windows most of the software is also updated in background, yet everybody keeps bitching about it. People often get confused where to find software for Linux, after they have been spoiled with Windows and Android. Completely unaware about magnitude of choices available on Linux. On the other side, that magnitude of choices is sometimes a problem, because lot of software is simply junk and you need to know what to pick. It is battle of David VS Goliath - everybody can find good photo editor for Windows in five minutes... For Linux, it is still different. It is not Linux fault completely, but it is still a problem because people are LAZY.
Shit does not constantly break in Windows, nor in Linux either. Big updates cause trouble in both cases. SO, I do not know what the problem is.
Of course, Linux is much safer against virus attacks when it covers 3% of desktop PC users. But actually, there were very few problems with Windows and virus attacks for years. The Era of Windows XP is long gone, so I could just repeat your picture there.
I use both Linux and Windows. And for me and my habits, Linux is better. But it requires some technical basics, which most people do not have. I think that those basics should be part of elementary education, but it is another subject altogether.Yes... Can you imagine that Windows actually had proper theming engine? Or "libraries" feature that would make it so easy to access several different sources of data... Idiots.Damn...