Re: Oracle and OpenSource

Paul wrote:
>
> > But AFAIK, Oracle does provide fixes back to the Open Source community,
> > esp. Apache and Linux kernel enhancements (eg: recent file system
> > enhancements around asyncIO). And it has made available some Open
> > Source code, esp. OCFS.
>
> And, by any small (teeny, tiny) chance, would these "fixes" also
> help/enable Oracle products to work/work better on Linux.

Look at the public list of projects at http://oss.oracle.com/ and decide for yourself. Seems to me some of the stuff they contribute, like the "kernel module for detecting kernel pauses" and "testing harness for the Linux Kernel" might be useful outside of the Oracle community.

But working on projects that do not provide any benefit to Oracle would not make any business sense. (That's generally cause for having management replaced.)

Strangely, I don't know anyone who advocates Linux or Open Source without perceiving some benefit - be it personal satisfaction, knowledge, 15 minutes in the limelight, financial benefit (even just eliminating cost), etc.

>
> > Isn't a fundemental tenant of good business to use [leverage <g>] any
> > and all tools and methods to provide a competitive edge?
> Indeed, and I'm not knocking it (BTW, it's "tenet" - a tenant is
> something else entirely 8-)).

Thanks. I needed that.

>
> All I'm saying is that an Open Source user is *_not_* necessarily an
> Open Source proponent.
>
> A proponent is an "advocate" - if Oracle were truly that, they would
> have at least made Oracle available for the Free BSD's - no? Well, I
> suppose that one could argue that they are "advocates" in a limited
> sense - i.e. "Stay off Micro$oft platforms" - however, this IMHO,
> doesn't make them advocates in the true sense of the term.
>

I guess hosting tutorials, such as the new "AWK: The Linux Administrators' Wisdom Kit"
(http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/dulaney_awk.html) doesn't count. (Other than the page boilerplate, not a mention of Oracle in the article.) Or other Technical Articles (see http://otn.oracle.com/tech/linux/index.html).

Or hosting OS projects, at
http://otn.oracle.com/tech/opensource/projects.html .... Oh wait, those are 'open source but related to Oracle', so they don't count.

All that said, I can agree with some of your argument. All open source operating system discussions I've seen/read specifically state Linux, not general Open Source. Oracle has been "operating system agnostic" very publicly for a very long time, supporting and dropping operating systems based on commercial viability - I really don't expect them to support Hurd anytime soon either.

Based on your definition, can I interpret this to mean that Red Hat and SuSE are not proponents/advocates either? AFAICT, they are only doing this to make money - and I really don't see them supporting the Free BSDs either ... Received on Thu Jan 22 2004 - 18:55:48 CET