Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Red Hat Software Businesses Databases Oracle Programming Software Linux Business Microsoft IT

Red Hat Dismisses Threat Posed by Oracle and MS 95

Posted by Hemos
from the well-of-course-he-would-say-that dept.
Rob writes "Red Hat Inc's executive vice president of worldwide sales, Alex Pinchev, has dismissed the impact that Oracle Corp's entry into the Linux support business could have on Red Hat, insisting Oracle does not really know what it is doing. Pinchev also described Microsoft's recent interoperability and patent peace deal with Novell Inc as a "non-event" and dismissed the suggestion that Linux users are at risk of a patent infringement lawsuit from Redmond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Dismisses Threat Posed by Oracle and MS

Comments Filter:
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:14PM (#17195404) Homepage Journal
    "They are delivering no innovation, delayed patches, delayed releases, no real knowledge of open source and no involvement with the community, so where is the value?" he asked.


    Oracle's typical answer is that Oracle will only be supported by platforms blessed by Oracle. See this FAQ from Oracle [oracle.com], particular the part on p.4 about the 'Transition Path for Red Hat and Novell customers' In particular, this means that Oracle in the future will probably only be supported on Unbreakable Linux. Have problems? Not running on Unbreakable Linux? You won't get support. It's that simple. Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

    • this means that Oracle in the future will probably only be supported on Unbreakable Linux
      I can dream though that perhaps the more Oracle limits the options available for using their systems, more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL). My personal philosophy is that I choose not to use products that limit how/where I can use them.
      • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:28PM (#17195636) Homepage Journal
        I can dream though that perhaps the more Oracle limits the options available for using their systems, more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL). My personal philosophy is that I choose not to use products that limit how/where I can use them.


        That's a good philosophy to have, but unfortunately, the sad reality is that your average PHB has heard of Oracle and knows that it has the reputation of being a rock-solid reliable product. Postgres and MySQL are unknown by many PHBs, and even worse, MySQL has the reputation of not being so reliable and not so high-performing, despite the best efforts of MySQL AB, which has put a ton of effort into MySQL to improve in areas of performance, availability, and reliability. Postgres is nice, and I think for all but high-end clustered databases, it can give Oracle a run for its money, but for now Oracle has carved itself out a nice niche being a premiere database player, along with IBM's DB2.
        • by syphax (189065)

          ... but for now Oracle has carved itself out a nice niche being a premiere database player, along with IBM's DB2.

          Oracle's problem, though, is that they are being driven upmarket by their lower cost competitors. This is is the same dynamic that led to PCs destroying the minicomputer industry and started to threaten Intel, until they (wisely) realized that they couldn't abandon the low-margin part of their business. Clayton Christensen [claytonchristensen.com] wrote a pretty good book about this; here's [amazon.com] a very good talk [itconversations.com] by him.

          The question is, how must faster are the low-cost DBs (MySQL, Postgres, MSSQL, etc.) improving with respect to cus

      • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:30PM (#17195678)
        ...more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL).

        I like Postgres and MySQL as much as the next guy, they both have a lot going for them, but come on. Are they really as solid as Oracle for "mission critical" 100% up-time applications? I think they have the potential to reach that point, but maybe not yet there.

        • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:49PM (#17195974) Homepage Journal
          not only that- how many free db's provide a supported back end for peoplesoft?


        • EnterpriseDB goes mission critical at Sony Online Entertainment
          By Jack Loftus, News Writer

          Sony Online Entertainment Inc. (SOE), the online games giant responsible for popular games like Everquest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies, will migrate to open source EnterpriseDB Advanced Server 8.1.

          [...] "There is certainly demand picking up for open source databases, and we are going to be seeing more and more of these larger companies adopting an open source database strategy," Yuhanna said. "With Sony -- it was dealing w
        • Is Oracle really solid for "mission critical" 100% up-time applications?
      • by Decaff (42676)
        I can dream though that perhaps the more Oracle limits the options available for using their systems, more people/organizations will consider alternatives to their products (i.e. Postgres or MySQL). My personal philosophy is that I choose not to use products that limit how/where I can use them.

        That is fine, and there is an easy way to avoid the trap - develop for your database using a high-quality ORM (Object-Relational Mapping) tool that abstracts away the database differences. Hibernate is popular, or I
    • by BokLM (550487) * <boklm@mars-attacks.org> on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:24PM (#17195560) Homepage Journal
      Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

      Or hopefully they'll migrate instead their existing Oracle installations to MySQL or PostgreSQL or anything that is free software.
      • by Petersko (564140) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:59PM (#17196110)
        Or hopefully they'll migrate instead their existing Oracle installations to MySQL or PostgreSQL or anything that is free software.

        I can only speak to the situation at the company I've been with for the last eight years. We're pretty big, and have some large data requirements. There is absolutely zero chance that we will move away from Oracle in the next ten years (at least). The cost to licence, administer, and maintain our Oracle databases is trivial next to the cost of moving.

        Other "Oracle shops" where professional acquaintances of mine are working are in a similar situation. The cost to move is MUCH larger than the cost to stay, and Oracle works extremely well.

        For us, specifically, PostgreSQL and MySQL are not nearly powerful enough anyway. We really do need the beast.

        I keep hearing that "move to an open source product" mantra about databases, but as near as I can tell it only makes sense for relatively trivial, simple systems to do so. It's not that more complex systems can't be built on the open source product - it's that once you're already running, there has to be a very serious gain to be had in switching.
        • WARNING: SLIGHTLY OFFTOPIC AHEAD

          For us, specifically, PostgreSQL and MySQL are not nearly powerful enough anyway. We really do need the beast.

          That's because the software in your company is poorly designed. Don't shoot me yet, please read on. All software I've seen, including the ones I work/worked on, are poorly designed. Ideally, every software should be implemented in a way to make such changes, if not trivial, at least possible, regarding time and cost constraints.

          The problem is that what we learn in academia is not what we face in every day software development, when we are employed by companies. Companie

          • by Petersko (564140)
            That's because the software in your company is poorly designed. Don't shoot me yet, please read on.

            I have read on, as requested.

            We have large databases running on clusters, with backup database clusters located in separated datacentres. They're running half-mast as hot standbys, continuously being synched, with
            We are an industrial company with data streaming in from over 8000 miles of equipment. Anything that stops our systems costs us huge amounts of money, and puts us in regulatory danger, so we
          • by drsmithy (35869)

            Ideally, every software should be implemented in a way to make such changes, if not trivial, at least possible, regarding time and cost constraints.

            Nice in theory, but it inherently either prohibits any company from implementing software that does $TASK better than anyone else, because they are constrained by having to retain compatibility with all the software that doesn't do $TASK very well, if at all, or it ignores the possibility of any $TASK that isn't designed and specified by a committee.

            Or, to pu

          • You learn that databases tend to do one of two things without constant vigilance on the part of the maintainer. One route is users who don't want to learn to do things properly and "migrate" their "personal data" to flat files and then want help extracting what they have actually destroyed - "but it was there!" - or can't figure out why the "inefficient" two fields (a character and a numeric) they merged into a single field will no longer sort properly. Two, cowboys move in and small data tables proliferat
      • Probably not... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday December 11, 2006 @01:01PM (#17196144) Homepage Journal
        I use both MySQL and PostgreSQL and they are very good. They are not a plug in replacement for Oracle.
        Do your applications support MySQL or PostgreSQL? If not too bad.
        Do you want to re-write your applications for MySQL or PostgreSQL?

        It really isn't as simple as just migrating. To be honest MySQL and PostgreSQL are not as good as Oracle for very large databases that require high availability.
        The can probably do about 90% of what Oracle can do but some places need that extra 10%.
        • by MartinG (52587)
          It really isn't as simple as just migrating. To be honest MySQL and PostgreSQL are not as good as Oracle for very large databases that require high availability.
          The can probably do about 90% of what Oracle can do but some places need that extra 10%


          This is rather vague. Specifically, what do you require in your application that PostgreSQL does not offer?
          • by LWATCDR (28044)
            Nothing. That is why I use PostgreSQL. My applications fit in to that 90% that PostgreSQL does so well.
            From what I have seen PostgreSQL doesn't handle high availability clustering as well as Oracle.

            The real issue is what is the Path of least resistance. If your in an Oracle shop and you have a lot of experience in Oracle and a lot of applications that run on Oracle then the Path of least resistance will be to change distributions to one that Oracle supports instead of porting your code to a new database.
            In
      • Still not really free, but you can keep the platform while giving Oracle the finger. Migrating SAP to MaxDB: nice business for the consulting industry.

        Larry, that was a mistake.

    • Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

      Not a lawyer, not even a pompous Slashdot-Talk-Like-A-Yale-Grad-But-Have-No-Real-Cl ue-Lawyer... But... Are there anti-trust issues with this idea of Oracle only on Oracle Linux?

      • Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:34PM (#17195726) Homepage Journal
        Not a lawyer, not even a pompous Slashdot-Talk-Like-A-Yale-Grad-But-Have-No-Real-Cl ue-Lawyer... But... Are there anti-trust issues with this idea of Oracle only on Oracle Linux?


        Are there anti-trust issues with SQL Server only on Windows Server?
        • Are there anti-trust issues with SQL Server only on Windows Server?

          It's not quite the same situation. SQL Server has never ran on any other platform. Currently, Oracal does run on a variety of platforms.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Sure. Oracle runs on Solaris, Windows, AIX, and HP-UX, I think. It's just that if you want to run Oracle on Linux, despite Oracle's words to the contrary, I think in the not-so-distant future you will most likely be running it on Unbreakable Linux.

            But even if you consider the remote possibility that Oracle might shut off every other platform, even then, you still wouldn't have anti-trust issues. Oracle has nothing near a monopoly in relational database management software. And nothing prevents Microsoft
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ajehals (947354)
        Not really as Oracle do not have a monopoly when it comes to databases. If anything its probably good business practice for Oracle, since it reduces the amount of potential system configuration's that they have to deal with.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:30PM (#17195664)

      Oracle's typical answer is that Oracle will only be supported by platforms blessed by Oracle.

      Unlikely. Ellison is a blustering motormouth, but he isn't stupid. He wanted to put pressure on Red Hat because they were pressuring him -- hence the whole support for Red Hat drama. Oracle won't be going Oracle-platform-only anytime soon.

    • You say that Oracle will support only on Unbreakable, and link to a document from Oracle that says the exact opposite. From page 5:

      Will Oracle continue to support customers that are using Oracle products on Red Hat RHEL, Novell SLES, and Asianux?,

      Yes. Oracle is fully committed to all of its customers that have deployed or will deploy Oracle products on other Linux distributions that are currently supported, including Red Hat, Novell and Asianux. We will continue to certify and offer support for Oracle

    • by Azarael (896715) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:42PM (#17195864) Homepage
      My suspicion is that no matter what they say in their FAQ, they will continue to provide support for other Linux flavours(for the big customers at least). Do you think a customer Like Amazon which probably has 1000's (or more) Oracle installations is going to migrate the OS's on all of those machines? Not likely. The second you start letting vendors dictate major components in your IT infrastructure is the second you're screwed.
      • Amazon which probably has 1000's (or more) Oracle installations is going to migrate the OS's on all of those machines? Not likely.

        And certainly not for the cost per CPU that Oracal will want to charge them for Unbreakable Linux...

    • Thats funny, on page four of that pdf you linked to it says:

      Will Oracle continue to support other operating systems?
      Yes. Oracle has a thirty-year history of supporting Oracle products on numerous popular operating systems. Unbreakable Linux does nothing to decrease our commitment to other operating systems such as WindowsTM, other distributions of Linux, or UNIXTM environments.

      So "other distributions of Linux" seems to contradict your conclusion that "Not running on Unbreakable Linux? You won't get support.

    • they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.

      Perhaps Oracle customers faced with this sour ultimatum might find it attractive to keep their current platform and try MySQL (more flexible, faster, lower costs [mysql.com]) or Greenplum (100x as fast as Oracle [greenplum.com]) instead...

      Things don't always pan out for the faltering Emperor.

  • by Billosaur (927319) *

    British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin dismisses threat of Adolph Hitler to European political stability. "He's just some misunderstood painter," the PM was quoted as saying.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:36PM (#17195772)
    Pinchev also described Microsoft's recent interoperability and patent peace deal with Novell Inc as a "non-event" and dismissed the suggestion that Linux users are at risk of a patent infringement lawsuit from Redmond."


    While Microsoft's recent interoperability and patent peace deal with Novell Inc might indeed be a "non-event", and Linux users might not be at any risk of a Microsoft lawsuit, these "facts" do not always matter.

    What matters is the perception these ramblings create. Do we remember the FUD about Linux Microsoft used to tout in early 2001? It seemed to work. All over a sudden, PHBs feared this Linux phenomenon and some [Linux] deals failed not because of facts but because of this FUD.


    There was another piece of FUD when it came to support. Ballmer used to say, "Who do you run to when you need support on Linux? Do you run to RedHat, Novell, the guys at OSDL, IBM? It was all FUD but achieved some success at dissuading folks from using Linux.


    The other untruth was one on installation. While software on some Linux distros can be a pain to install, other distros like Freespire, Linspire and Xandros are so easy to have software installed on. But what you hear is the same rant that software on Linux is difficult to manage.

    The last untruth:

    A good number of people I have spoken to seem to think that Linux, is that particular distro they are experimenting with. So when things do not work out, "Linux" is labeled as a non starter! I can confirm that I know Linux distros that will work out of the box o hardware that Microsoft's Windows has trouble even recognizing.

    • There was another piece of FUD when it came to support. Ballmer used to say, "Who do you run to when you need support on Linux? Do you run to RedHat, Novell, the guys at OSDL, IBM? It was all FUD but achieved some success at dissuading folks from using Linux...The other untruth was one on installation. While software on some Linux distros can be a pain to install, other distros like Freespire, Linspire and Xandros are so easy to have software installed on. But what you hear is the same rant that software on
      • Yep, these ARE untruths and have been for MANY years. I have had an easier time installing many versions of Linux on my hardware than installing Windows. Is Linux perfect? Nope. Is Windows perfect? Hell no...

        And BTW using Linux isn't "navigating that minefield" and only a pro-Microsoft FUDSTER would suggest that it is.

        Nice try.
        • Yep, these ARE untruths and have been for MANY years. I have had an easier time installing many versions of Linux on my hardware than installing Windows. Is Linux perfect? Nope. Is Windows perfect? Hell no... And BTW using Linux isn't "navigating that minefield" and only a pro-Microsoft FUDSTER would suggest that it is.

          You missed the point completely. I'm guessing you were more interested in labelling me pro-Microsoft than in thinking too hard about the points raised.

          Since the original post contained
          • "Like it or not, these ARE weaknesses, at least in the eyes of many. The whole business of, "Well, this distro sucks but THAT distro is way better" is a very dodgy one for anybody making architectural decisions. Lots of companies stick with Solaris, HP and others because they just aren't interested in navigating that minefield."

            Yep, what you said about "navigating that minefield" is pretty obviously intended to imply the use of Linux. On the off chance that I was wrong about you being a pro-Microsoft fudds
            • You claimed I said that using Linux is navigating a minefield. My statement involves making architectural choices between competing distros with strengths and weaknesses. Do I have to explain why these statements are different? Do I have to explain as to a child?

              And if you've read my past postings and somehow come to the conclusion that I'm pro-Microsoft, I'll just assume you used the same deductive reasoning that led you to misunderstand me this time.
            • by Macthorpe (960048)
              I think, in fact, he said choosing a distro of Linux is a minefield, and most companies would rather stick where they are with minimal risk than pick a distro and run the risk of getting it wrong.

              Reading comprehension score: 0/100
  • by mgpeter (132079) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:47PM (#17195932) Homepage

    'Would you sue your own customers? I wouldn't and I don't believe Microsoft will ever do it,"...

    I think he is giving Microsoft too much credit, like any other large corporation that is facing struggling sales (cough,RIAA,cough), Microsoft has proven they will do *anything* they can to get a sale (including threatening their own customers).

    For those paying attention, the clues are all around that Microsoft has in fact already played their patent card with some companies. Anyone thinking of deploying a large (1000+) installation using Samba instead of a Windows server will probably get a call/letter from a MS lawyer (once they get wind of it) stating that if you proceed you will be in violation of several Microsoft patents - even though they won't say what patents are involved!

    Those of you who are not quite paying attention, just check out the interview with Stallman, Allison and Waugh at http://questionsplease.org/ [questionsplease.org].

    • by westlake (615356)
      like any other large corporation that is facing struggling sales

      In what alternate reality is Microsoft struggling for sales? It sure as heck doesn't look like this reality: MSFT: Key Statistics [yahoo.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hanssprudel (323035)
        Something of Microsoft's isn't selling [yahoo.com]...
      • In what alternate reality is Microsoft struggling for sales? It sure as heck doesn't look like this reality: MSFT: Key Statistics

        In that reality of everday commerce where investors insist on increasing growth. From the linky, both revenue and earnings are a bit over 10%. Sounds fine, right? Newspapers consistently do about the same (going back as far as you want), but their investors are screaming for cost-cutting, and the general public thinks they're all in the toilet and about to go out of business.

        If
        • by westlake (615356)
          From the linky, both revenue and earnings are a bit over 10%. Sounds fine, right? Newspapers consistently do about the same (going back as far as you want), but their investors are screaming for cost-cutting, and the general public thinks they're all in the toilet and about to go out of business.

          That is an 11% growth in Microsoft earnings over the last quarter.

          ""Contrary to popular belief, newspapers aren't dying. Newspapers are making tons of money." Extra: Newspapers Aren't Dead [time.com] The magazine has a gra

          • by killjoe (766577)
            Earnings is nothing. How is their PE ratio?
            • by oakgrove (845019)
              PE ratio is nothing. What's the ratio of their share price and forward earnings divided by the expected growth rate compared to other leading companies in their sector compared to the market as a whole? Is the company secular or cyclical? If cyclical, is the economy trending in their favor (think interest rates)? So on and so far, yah de da. I'm just yanking your chain :)
    • SAMBA isn't a good example. Not only is it reverse-engineered, but Microsoft's file and printer sharing technology is licensed from IBM (who holds the approriate patents).

      Now, if on the other hand you develop a new camera and use flash memory formatted with FAT and using filenames longer than 8 characters with a 3 character extension, well then you'd have to be loony because they'll be all over you for crazy stuff like that.
    • Why do slashdotters so often act like "suing your own custormers" is an atrosity? It isn't, in fact it's common.

      I'm a bit surprised at the reaction because, I would think that there are high-level consultants on /. What do you do if a client does not pay on time, or otherwise breaks the contract? Sure you try to work things out, but sometimes you can't.
  • by hey! (33014) on Monday December 11, 2006 @12:53PM (#17196024) Homepage Journal
    That's OK for Oracle. The people making the purchasing decisions don't know what they're doing either.

  • Do you think the Red Hat EVP of Sales is really going to say something like "HOLY CRAP! We're screwed!!!!" ? Of course not, they're going to come out swinging - that's all they can do.
    • Actually i think all the points he made in respect to Oracle's Linux were valid and in the long term will turn out to be true. There is a reason that RedHat is still a big name in Linux after all these years - they put alot of work and money into adding value to the open source communities base software offerings in the form of well patched and configured set of releases and a structured release/development cycle. This in concert with their support package makes them a tough act to beat overall for business

  • "Ok, well, it was a nice run, but now we're screwed and we'll be lucky if we're still in business in 2010"? I mean, they will be lucky if they remain in business, and things are bleak for linux (except for suse, natch) but it's his job to present a brave face and reassuring words for stockholders, isn't it?
    • by BokLM (550487) *
      I doubt Red Hat will die in the near futur. I see no reason why they wouldn't be in business in 2010.

      it's his job to present a brave face and reassuring words for stockholders, isn't it?

      And it's Steve Ballmer's job to let people beleive Red Hat will be out of business by 2010. And I see no reason to trust Steve Ballmer more than him. And it's not like it's the first time Steve Ballmer is spreading FUD ...

      Whatever will happens, we'll see, but I see no reason to be afraid of what will happen to Red Hat now.
  • I thought that the end was near for Linux in the U.S. until a couple of days ago.

    Oracle and maybe microsoft/suse in particular gives their high-value customers something to spend their money on with their distro. Microsoft and Oracle can't pull the litigation trigger right now because it threatens an extremely valuable/profitable Service segment. For right now, it's about keeping their customers happy and keeping those service contracts going.

    Some UNlikely litigation targets:
    filesystem patents
    Mono
    Identity
  • Novell bashing and let people here know that openSUSE 10.2 is out? Normaly each and every major distribution that has a new version out and not let it pending since the 7th when it came out.
    Or will people think that RedHat is now also in the power of Microsoft and does not understand how business work?
  • I must say, after having read TFA and other comments by Red Hat officials about the recent developments in the software world, I am full of respect for them. The analysis of the drawbacks of 'Unbreakable Linux' are well stated, and the dismissal of the MS-Novell deal, as well as an unshaking resolve to not enter into a similar deal, is commendable. I don't currently use any Red Hat products, but when/if I have an influence on Linux purchasing procedures (where I currently am, or elsewhere), I will certainly
  • 'Would you sue your own customers? I wouldn't and I don't believe Microsoft will ever do it,"...
    Ernie Ball [com.com] might have something else to say about that.
  • Rather than always "dimissing the impact", just once I would like to hear a report where a CEO/President/VP actually comments with what they are really thinking.... "Holy @$%$, they did what????"
  • paranoid /.'s (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Deinesh (770292)
    I don't know why everybody is getting so freaked out,

    Now Enterprise Linux is cheaper -> GOOD, Linux market gets bigger. IMO RHEL costs too damn much anyway.
    Unbreakable Linux becomes the standard linux -> GOOD, I am sick of trying to figure out how creative vendor X is in trying to hide a file from me.

    On the other hand, if Red Hat goes under, Linux will loose a huge contributer, but I don't think it will be fatal.

    I also doubt that Oracle would be stupid enough to limit support for their DB to Unbreakab
    • by drsmithy (35869)

      I also doubt that Oracle would be stupid enough to limit support for their DB to Unbreakable linux. Their DB is their bread and butter, if they drop support for any OS that they curently support (say RHEL), there will be customer attrition. Why would they want to do loose Database customers for the sake of a product (Unbreakable Linux) that they will not make as much money on?

      For Oracle customers, the only point of interest is Oracle. It doesn't matter if it's running on Linux, Solaris, Windows or a room

      • by Deinesh (770292)
        There are very, very few Oracle customers who are in any position to move away from Oracle.
        Those few customers will consider other options. A fraction of those will migrate - why would Oracle want to loose any Database customers for a product that they don't even own - it doesn't make sense to me.

        There is also the infrastructure issue. Most corporations are standardized (or trying to standardize) on a single OS wether it be Windows, Solaris, SUSE linux or RHEL. A PHB might decide that it is cheaper to migra
  • I have just been to a VMWare user conference, and they said that they are creating virtual machines without OS's to run programs directly; Oracle was the main example of this. This means that Oracle will have to provide it's own drivers and such to talk directly to VMWare. Maybe this is what they are plaining on doing...
  • It occurs to me that since the ORacle Announcement and the Microsoft-Novell deal, then if Microsoft goes after RedHat with patent suits then it will also have to sue Oracle at the same time as it is essentially the same code.
    Now Oracle have far far bigger pockets than RedHat and could probably resist the Microsfot onslaught until a just verdict was reached in court whereas on its own RH would probably go under due to litigation costs.

    Or, is there some twist in the US Legal System that would allow M$ to sue
    • by fritsd (924429)
      Or, is there some twist in the US Legal System that would allow M$ to sue RH and not Oracle even though it was just as liable to be in breach of the unnamed patents?
      Yes, AFAIK if you have a patent, you are granted a full monopoly, so you can choose who to sue and how much money you want (no limits whatsoever) or even refuse a license at any price to some of the infringers, while giving others a free license.
    • Yes, it is possible. However, there's nothing to stop Oracle, IBM & others from filing amicus curiae, "friend of the court" briefs, and/or suing MS for patent infringement. If MS decides to sue RH for patent infringement, it may end in Global Thermonuclear Patent War. Don't think so? Austria-Hungary was sure Britain and France would not intervene if A-H invaded Serbia. The outcome? World War I, after which Austria-Hungary was dead, while Serbia became Yugoslavia. War is almost always a crap-shoot
  • A buddy of mine just bought his new Mac whatever laptop. He's running parallels so that he can use the Windows Only VPN client. Apparently the fine folks that make Parallels have a new version out such that you can run windows applications that appear to be running like a regular Apple app (i.e. you minimize the virtualization window). As virtualization becomes more and more powerful, I don't think worrying about which OS you're running will be that much of an issue. I can't speak for what most DBAs see

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...