Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Oracle Switching To Linux 539

Posted by timothy from the there's-floor-room-at-lwce-for-larry dept.
Bill Kendrick writes: "This Computerworld story quotes Oracle CEO Larry Ellison as saying 'We'll be on Linux no later than the summer, so we'll be running our whole business on Linux." When asked what this means for Unix vendors like Sun... "It will be several years before the big machine dies, but inevitably the big machine will die.' Ouch!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Switching To Linux More

Oracle Switching To Linux

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah, right... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cheetahfeathers ( 93473 )
    Right at the point when we can get kick ass high end hardware such as Sun's E15k for free... that's when Sun will die. Remember, Sun is still primarily a hardware company.

    • Re:Yeah, right... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Kayax ( 448395 )
      I think that Sun is in big trouble, even with the high end servers. Just an example at my company: We have an E450 with 2 450MHz CPUs and 4GB RAM. That system easily costs $35000. So we decided to try out some cheap-o Linux desktops: dual Pentium III/1GHz with 2GB RAM. These cost $5000 max (from Dell. You can get them cheaper elsewhere). Anyway, the Linux desktops outperform the E450 by 30-40% on our applications. The problem comes in when you try to use too much RAM -- Linux doesn't seem to be able to handle it very well compared to Sun. But for 95% of the stuff we do (Verilog simulations, HDL synthesis, timing analysis) they are faster and cheaper than the E450. Plus more and more of our applications are becoming available for Linux.

      Intel is releasing faster chips all the time and Linux is continually improving -- I don't think it will take long until Sun is left in the dust.

      • Re:Yeah, right... (Score:4, Informative)

        by segfaultcoredump ( 226031 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @05:27PM (#2934042)
        Ok, i'll bite:

        for starters, you are comparing a dual cpu box with a quad cpu box. The quad's always cost more per cpu. Simple matter of the fact that it is harder to get 4 cpus' to talk together compared to only 2 (why do you think intel has yet to produce a 64 way smp server.... sun did it 5 years ago, cray did it before them.) You also have to look at things like backplane contention (are all of those cpu's on the same bus? sucks to be you if they are)

        anyway, yes, sun boxes cost more than their intel counterparts in the low to mid range. That said, I have yet to find an intel box that does what the X1 can do for the low end, and once you get to 8 ways systems, intel starts to disappear from the map (and the sun boxes are the same cost or cheaper).

        Now, we got the hardware price argument out of the way.

        when making a decision, there are 3 major areas to consider: Price, Performance and Reliability. Only an idiot would focus on price when the cost of downtime is a million an hour.

        The real reason i purchase sun boxes is not because they are the fastest. You want fast cpu's? Go get an intel box.

        here are the main reasons I continue to purchase sun boxes:

        #1) Sun's support organization. It is second to none. period, end of story. You have a problem, they fix it. I had a failed disk earlier this week, the support rep's first response was to send a tech on site that day.

        #2) When they boast about binary compatibility from $1,000 to $10,000,000, they are not kidding. I can give the developers a low end box and know that the app will still work on a mid to high end box

        #3) It just works. I dont get the "what glib are you using", "is that rev XYZ of that nic?" or any of that other crap.

        #4) the hardware seems to last forever and ever and ever. And sun supports the stuff for a long time. Every try and get dell to support a six year old box? yeah, good luck.

        #5) did i mention the support?

        #6) it was built to be managed from a serial port and live on a network from day 1. I love the fact that i can put all of my servers in a colo, walk out, and do the OS install from home. I know that PC's are now beginning to get to the point where you can hook a serial cable up and get them to boot from the net and do an os install. lets face it, there are whole books on how to use jumpstart in the sun environment and do 100% hands off installs. It just works, and it is fully supported.

        So, as you can see, there is more to the decision than just cost. In the world that i work in, time is money, and the hardware cost is a very small percentage of the TCO.

        • Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Informative)

          by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @06:50PM (#2934561) Homepage Journal
          I agree with some of your points, but with caveats.

          (1) Sun's support is great if you are in the right area. Check with companies in smaller centers to see what kind of support they are getting, and how long it takes to get a good engineer out to resolve any serious issues.

          (3) Isn't quite true. The OS is only the foundation, and you rapidly find that you need this particular OS patch for Sybase, another for DB/2, another for Encina, Tuxedo, Websphere, ... If you can find a combination of packages that can agree on patch levels, count yourself lucky! The only advantage Sun has here is a better coordination of patches than standalone Linux.

          (4) You have got to be kidding! Sun's CPUs, memory modules, and hard drives fail at least as often as other vendors. Personal experience would indicate IBM and HP as the most reliable, but I have no empirical evidence to support that observation.

          Your point on price not being relevant is largely true. The cost of the physical hardware is trivial compared to maintenance staff, software licenses, development costs, and cascading downtime.

        • Re:Yeah, right... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tsugumi ( 553059 )
          And I'll bite back. ;)

          First, the less consequential. We're losing faith rapidly in Sun's engineers. They are getting as bad as Microsoft with buggy bug-fixes.

          What's important is for the price of a high-end Sun box, I can distribute across several faster Intel boxes. I will have enough money left to swap out what are commodity boxes when they fail. Support is less of an issue for what amounts to disposable server hardware. Even after buying with the assumption that everything will break, I will still have cash to spare.

          I can architect a server infrastructure that, as far as the end-user, and therefore the keeper of the purse-strings, "just works" cheaper, and will beat the Sun platform between 3-5 times in terms of performance.

          You say Time is money and you're right, but even if Sun's support or hardware reliability was everything you say it is (and IMO it is not) it takes less time to swap out a fast Intel box, and throw it out if it's fried.

        • Re:Yeah, right... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Shuck ( 218188 )
          Re: #1) Did you get a true tech or just a lame keyboard monkey? Ever have a "real" issue and watch the keyboard monkey dilly around calling support asking what to do?

          A company I worked at lost their ENTIRE database because the keyboard monkey Replaced a failing controller card, swapped cable locations (put cables back in wrong slots), bumped a scsi cable, bent a pin and claimed ignorance!

          What do you expect for paying 10% support contracts and having a monkeys that need a gui to do anything.

          re #5) Did I mention KEYBOARD MONKEYS?

          re #6) You obviously never tried to install apps that required a gui.

          Jump start a sun. Sure but try to JS a sun off of a linux server and your are F*CKED. Because sun decided to make their own PROPRIATARY dhcp crud.

          I could go on but this will just turn into a pissing match with each of us saying you/your os sucks. But bottem line is SUN sucks becuase they will never own up to all the mistakes they make.

          Oh yeah that tech ^H^H^H^H keyboard monkey that screwed us up? well he "lost" his notes. I would say he burned them in the parking lot when he realized what he did.

        • Re:Yeah, right...not (Score:4, Informative)

          by redzebra ( 238754 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @08:09PM (#2934933)
          Ok, i'll bite: allow me ... #1) Sun's support organization. It is second to none. period, end of story. You have a problem, they fix it. I had a failed disk earlier this week, the support rep's first response was to send a tech on site that day.

          Let me guess, you have a multimilion contract and they had a newbey which could use some training :-)...

          #2) When they boast about binary compatibility frSo, as you can see, there is more to the decision than just cost. In the world that i work in, time is money, and the hardware cost is a very small percentage of the TCO.om $1,000 to $10,000,000, they are not kidding. I can give the developers a low end box and know that the app will still work on a mid to high end box

          eeuh, 2 posibilities here : a) you're talking hw, and i don't understand you at all. The only one which did care for downward campatibilit was INTEL (also only reason why it stayed popular) b) you're talking about software and then it's just stupid. Just recompiling you're app for newer hardware gives you a better performing app. Binary compatibility is just a stinky way to be able to hide theire source.

          #3) It just works. I dont get the "what glib are you using", "is that rev XYZ of that nic?" or any of that other crap.

          ... eeuh do you ever actualy USE their stuff ? It doesn't work any better then any open source stuff I've seen up till know. You have a SUN-solve- account ? Even the most basic stuff doesn't work and you can beg for weeks to get somthing done in a decent way. "is that rev XYZ of that nic?" is exactly the crap that half of SUN's legal department will try to nail you with if you don't stop complaining fast enough

          #4) the hardware seems to last forever and ever and ever. And sun supports the stuff for a long time. Every try and get dell to support a six year old box? yeah, good luck.

          Right, but for SUN's 1x price I can get a a newer box each year.

          #5) did i mention the support?

          Euch you mean the part where you get forwarded from helpdesk to helpdesk and finaly get a ticketnumber saying you're in their problem database ???

          #6) it was built to be managed from a serial port and live on a network from day 1. I love the fact that i can put all of my servers in a colo, walk out, and do the OS install from home. I know that PC's are now beginning to get to the point where you can hook a serial cable up and get them to boot from the net and do an os install. lets face it, there are whole books on how to use jumpstart in the sun environment and do 100% hands off installs. It just works, and it is fully supported.

          Correct yourself here too.. you are talking about the UNIX way, not about the SUN way. The same can easily and much cheaper be achieved on PC hw with a free unix like bsd or linux.

          So, as you can see, there is more to the decision than just cost. In the world that i work in, time is money, and the hardware cost is a very small percentage of the TCO.

          Please stop glorifying SUN, the only reason you need them is because they have an IT department with a legal department to back them up. (which is the key for most of their businesses) For the rest it's just a big corp not much diffrent from M$ : some brilliant guys and lot's of morron's acting important

          --red

    • Sun is still primarily a hardware company.
      So nothing can prevent them from embracing Linux, then...

  • Gold Medal (Score:3, Funny)

    by Perdo ( 151843 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:45PM (#2933182) Homepage Journal
    Oracle Corp. is about to replace three Unix servers that run the bulk of its business applications with a cluster of Intel Corp. servers running Linux, Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison said yesterday.

    I think we can chalk this up as a win.

    GO LINUX!

    • Re:Gold Medal (Score:5, Funny)

      by bribecka ( 176328 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:48PM (#2933222) Homepage
      Oracle Corp. is about to replace three Unix servers that run the bulk of its business applications with a cluster of Intel Corp. servers running Linux, Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison said yesterday.

      I think we can chalk this up as a win.

      Oh yeah, big win! Linux replaced THREE SERVERS! 783,472,991 to go!

      • Re:Gold Medal (Score:5, Interesting)

        by spudnic ( 32107 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:38PM (#2933686)
        It's not a huge win because they are replacing three servers, it's because they are Oracle. I'm sure when the IT department heads hear that Oracle trusts Linux enough to place the bulk of their business systems on it, a lot of them will take it very seriously.

        The article also said that they would also provide FULL system support for Linux. That's a really big plus. The IT managers know that if they deploy Linux that Oracle will back them up if anything goes wrong.

        Big, big win.
        .

    • Hmmm (Score:2)

      by Arker ( 91948 )

      Not sure what to think of this, honestly.


      Sure, Linux is great, I love it. That's not the problem.


      The hardware aspect of this just doesn't sound that great to me. Replacing three high end SPARC boxes with a cluster of Intel hardware might not be the greatest idea in the world. Secondary costs could easily skyrocket. I guess only time will tell...

      • Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jsprat ( 442568 )
        ...Replacing three high end SPARC boxes ...

        To quote the article:

        Instead of upgrading three of its older Hewlett-Packard Co. Unix servers, Oracle will move its application server and business software to Linux-based Intel machines later this year

        They're getting rid of old equipment, not mindlessly replacing new hardware.

        I wonder how old the HP boxes are?

  • Licensing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jeffy210 ( 214759 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:46PM (#2933194)
    This is kind of interesting... I just looked at their web page today, and Oracle 9i is licensed to run on different flavors of Unix, but no where listed did it say it was licensed to run on Linux. I wonder if they'll be changing that soon?

    • Re:Licensing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by segfaultcoredump ( 226031 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:06PM (#2933394)
      Actually, it is licensed to run based on the number of cpu's. RAC (real application clusters) cost an extra 50%. Last I checked, you could download 9i for linux intel (just watch those system requirements very carefully, your favorite distro is most likely not covered)

      All of that said, if oracle can get you to get rid of your 72CPU SunFire 15K and replace it with a 128 single cpu intel boxes..... (extra intel boxes to make up for the lost ram and system bandwidth in the 15K)

      Lets see what that would cost ya...

      list price for a 72 cpu license for a single box is 2.9 million. List price for those 128 cpu's w/ RAC will cost ya 7.6 million.

      Lots of smaller, "cheaper" systems can often cost less overall. This is not the case here, where the price delta more than makes up for the cost of the big sun box, and we dont even have to get into the argument over the extra cost involved in managing 128 different systems. (besides, RAC is not a 'shared nothing' cluster, so management of large clusters is a real pain)

      anyway, larry is always going to need sun to produce the big boxes for its big clients.

    • Re:Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sogol ( 43574 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:32PM (#2933634) Journal
      I have had oracle 9iAS running on Linux for a year.
      It is very poorly supported by oracle.

      I had to do a lot of tweaking, (editing kernel headers, etc)
      However, since i got it to work, it has totally outperformed the windows NT implementation.
      For one thing, it has uptime of 200+ days.

    • Re:Licensing (Score:5, Informative)

      by speedy1161 ( 47255 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:55PM (#2933818)
      The problem with Oracle licensing is that on Intel its in $ per MHz whereas on Sparc/PARISC/MIPS/etc. it's $ per CPU. This is what makes the 'big iron' competitive with the smaller machines, paying 25$ per Mhz on a dualie 2.2Ghz P4 is more expensive than paying for a 4 CPU license for an E450.

  • Linux kills Sun? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Vis ( 125597 )
    Who says linunx can't run on Sun systems? I've had a production sparc linux distro running successfully for over a year now. I'm not sure I'd want to pay for Oracle, as MySQL is still happy with life, but I doubt that my Sparc servers will be EOL'd any time soon.
  • Point being, Larry Ellison has a tendency to make sweeping pronouncements of that nature, as with the "Network Computer". Maybe they come true, maybe they don't. But if Larry's next payment to Russia for his newest MiG comes due and he doesn't have the cash, he just changes the pricing structure on the Oracle RDBMS to get a few more cents per transaction, since that's where the real money is.

    sPh

    • Re:Will they access Linux with NC's? (Score:5, Funny)

      by nizo ( 81281 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:02PM (#2933349) Homepage Journal
      But if Larry's next payment to Russia for his newest MiG comes due and he doesn't have the cash, he just changes the pricing structure on the Oracle RDBMS

      So THIS is how he plans to get rid of the competition. (Pictures of MIG flown by Larry flying over competitors corporate HQ, surface to air missiles a-flying). Can we all chip in and buy one of these for Linus?

      • it is after more versatile than a MiG ;)
      • Does anyone remember that Simpsons episode where Homer went to work for a guy called Scorpio who had a secret underground base with a death ray or something, and he was trying to take over the world.

        For some reason this guy always reminded me of Larry Ellison so I can just picture him flying that MiG over Microsoft's hq in Redmond :)
      • So THIS is how he plans to get rid of the competition. (Pictures of MIG flown by Larry flying over competitors corporate HQ, surface to air missiles a-flying).
        Not totally a joke, actually. I read an interview with LE in a flying publication where he said that whenever he is flying his MiG into Seattle and is put in a holding pattern, he asks for a fix centered over Bill Gates' house!

        sPh

  • at least their application ware, or am I wrong? Wasn't it Oracle's plan to create an application system that runs native on the hardware without any OS? I thought they finished that with 9i, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, yapping that the company will totally run on Linux is a bit odd then.
    • that was supposed to be 8i, and Dell was going to provide the hardware I believe. (Dell or Compaq, I forgot...) but basically Oracle had their own kernel layer that basically acted as the OS.

      My guess is, as they got further into the game, they realized that they wouldn't be able to compete with any level of scalability the performance of Oracle on Sun. The One Widget to rule them all! *cough*

  • He'll be flying into the airport late again... (Score:5, Funny)

    by somethingwicked ( 260651 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:49PM (#2933237)
    "You'll see us taking FULL SUPPORT RESPONSIBILITY for Linux," he said. "If you're running the app server and something goes wrong, call us and we'll come and fix it."

    Hmmm, gonna be pulling some late nighters there. I'll give him that its good talk. But I bet this is one case where the "sales" department hasn't told the support department their pitch yet.


    "YOU TOLD THE CUSTOMERS WE'D DO WHAT?"

    • Standard Distros (Score:2, Informative)

      by Geeyzus ( 99967 )
      They will have to support only some standard distributions of Linux, with no modifications or modifications limited to their "supported" subset they will create.

      Otherwise, it will be too big of a hassle figuring out where the problem lies with a custom distribution. This is not really that good of a thing for either Oracle or Linux... because either Oracle will have to have their own distribution, which you can not alter if you want to keep support, or you will have to go with a RedHat, Debian, Mandrake or some other flavor and keep it to their specs...

      Interesting to see how this turns out....

      • Re:Standard Distros (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:40PM (#2933699) Homepage Journal

        Actually, they will probably only support one or two major distributions of Linux, and they will probably subcontract out to the Linux vendor some of the Linux problems.

        This actually makes a lot of sense for Oracle. After all, they want you to spend as little on your hardware and operating system as possible. After all, they are selling a database and applications, not Solaris licenses. If they can cut Sun out of the loop that is billions more in potential profits for them. Their solutions become less expensive (and more competitive) without any loss of profit margin.

        The fact of the matter is that the operating system is quickly becoming a commodity. In a few years even Microsoft won't be selling their operating system (that's why they are so desperate to move to a service and support type business).

        • Re:Standard Distros (Score:3, Informative)

          by Malcontent ( 40834 )
          Solaris is free. I quote from the sun web site.

          "Now you can use the Solaris[tm] 8 Operating Environment at home or at work -- without paying a license fee. For only the cost of media ($75 U.S.) plus shipping, you can use the software on an unlimited number of computers with a capacity of eight or fewer CPUs."

          • Re:Standard Distros (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @09:23AM (#2936950) Homepage Journal

            It would appear the Solaris on Intel has come to the end of the road. Here is the quote from Sun's website.

            Please note: Sun is deferring the productization and release of the Solaris 9 OE for Intel IA-32. We will continue to sell and support Intel versions of the Solaris 8 OE. Per normal lifecycle policy it will remain available and supported under normal terms until mid CY2004, and supported under contract for up to five years beyond that date.

            At this time, we have discontinued Solaris 8 OE for Intel downloads. While we have discontinued the download program, we have also slashed the price of Solaris 8 OE for Intel media kits by 40% to $45 US (plus S/H).

            However, even if Sun wasn't end-of-lifing Solaris for Intel, there are obvious reasons why Oracle can't base their future business plans on the availability of a low-cost version of Solaris on Intel based hardware. The most obvious of these reasons is that Oracle doesn't own Solaris. If Oracle were to start suggesting to their customers that they run Oracle on free copies of Solaris for Intel (instead of Sun's Sparc hardware) then Sun is bound to notice, and they would almost certainly change the license for their Intel version. After all, they can't really let their free Intel version of Solaris cannabalize sales of their Sparc hardware.

            Linux, on the other hand, is safe because Oracle has as much control over it as they need. Since Oracle has access to the source code they can easily customize Linux to their particular needs.

            Larry is right, it sucks to be in the operating systems business right now. Especially if you are trying to sell a Unix-like operating system (although Microsoft is feeling the pinch as well). Linux on commodity hardware continues to improve at a remarkable pace, and you can't beat the price.

      • Re:Standard Distros (Score:4, Interesting)

        by spudnic ( 32107 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:55PM (#2933821)
        The article said they where working with Red Hat on the deal. I would assume that they are going to come up with a tight distrobution with just the essentials for Oracle. They'll stick with super stable kernels, nothing fancy.

        In a situation like that, support shouldn't really be a big problem, at least no bigger than normal.

        I guess if you're installing your 8 processor Oracle database server on a LinuxFromScratch box, you'd probably be on your own. ;)
        .

    • If Oracle ships a very light version of Linux with their database, then there's a good chance that this may be feasible.

  • most telling Ellison sentence (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shibut ( 208631 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:49PM (#2933239)
    (refering to Sun) "I think it's going to be really hard for an open standards company like that to get deep into the software business". So Linux yes, open source not so much...

    nuff said.

  • Larry to Sun.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:51PM (#2933254) Homepage Journal
    Larry to Sun et al.


    I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.


    Unforturnately for Larry, the same quote is being said to him by the Free Software movement....

    • Heh, no kidding (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DG ( 989 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:04PM (#2933373) Homepage Journal
      So there you are, some Big Company, with this nifty Linux cluster running Oracle, saving money on the OS and servers, but being bled white by Oracle's per-transaction fee structure.

      And then somebody discovers this "PostgresSQL" thing....

      Payback's a bitch, innit?

      DG

      http://autocross.dsm.org/books.html

      • Re:Heh, no kidding (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @05:54PM (#2934193)
        Yeah, except anyone that would be paying out the nose for Oracle is willing to pay the money not to have to go through the process of switching to a less secure, less featured and slower database. Also, the reason you pay for Oracle is the same reason people buy Cisco support contracts. If something fucks up, they will fix it immediately, it doesn't matter if it's 3am on a Sunday night, someone who definately knows what they're doing will be there within 15 minutes. You don't get that with PostgreSQL, or any other "free" software.

        What I'm saying here is that the many thousands of dollars per month large companies pay for Oracle is worth the absolute assurance that their database will be usable 24/365(6). Sometimes, it's just cheaper to pay the money than lose out on $100,000,000 worth of money transfers during the hour you're down.
    • I don't necessarily buy into this argument, BUT...

      Larry is almost certainly thinking of the advantages of commodity nature of the hardware (Intel) [once you get past some of the market speak] not to the nature of the software that happens to run on it (Linux).

      Sun is focused largely on HARDWARE, not software. Oracle is primarily about SOFTWARE, not hardware. Oracle can quite easily port their entire line of software, ergo, you're comparing apples and oranges.

  • Isn't it a bit ironic... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GCP ( 122438 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:51PM (#2933261)
    ...to hear the purveyor's of insanely expensive commercial software boasting about how they're switching from expensive commercial software to free software?

    Perhaps Sun should announce their commitment to PostgreSQL.
    • Perhaps Sun should announce their commitment to PostgreSQL.

      *ROFL* - N o kidding!! Thats just how this sounds. To me it, at first glance, it may appear that oracle could be canabalizing their own product. If Linux is good enough to replace Sun kit, why isn't PGSQL good enough to replace moderate database requirements? What an interesting time we live in!

      • Re:Isn't it a bit ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zsmooth ( 12005 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:06PM (#2933399)
        Most Oracle users don't use it for "moderate database requirements". They use it when they simply cannot afford to lose data and/or they need something that you can scale the hell out of. PostgreSQL is nice but will *never* replace Oracle. Sun would look childish to offer PGSQL as a replacement.

        • most Oracle users.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by studboy ( 64792 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:43PM (#2933729) Homepage
          back in the day, many of our clients *insisted* on using Oracle for the most trivial of applications, like BBSes or a phone-lookup service. They thought that by paying truckloads of cash their apps would be faster or something. Hell, even mySQL and Postgres would be overkill for some applications... The clients would rather pay than think!

          I left the industry after clients started using similar glassy-eyed statements about Java. Both Java and Oracle have their place, but considering Oracle's insane price and administration overhead, it needs quite a bit of research before deployment.

        • Re:Isn't it a bit ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs.ajs@com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @06:28PM (#2934437) Homepage Journal
          Horse hockey. Most Oracle users use it because they are told (by sales types) that, "Oracle stable. Stable good. Open Source unstable. Unstable bad."

          There are a small fraction of Oracle users that "cannot afford to lose data and/or they need something that you can scale the hell out of." Both of which are not 100% true of Oracle (personal experience(*) here), but true enough that sales droids make good money.

          (*)I've had Oracle databases simply go away when the machine crashed (would not even try to recognize the data on disk until a full backup had been restored). Mysql and Postgresql have never done this to me. As for scalability, Oracle is a beast. It costs exponentially more as you get into options like parallel server (which makes it less stable and harder to manage by an order of magnitude), and your hardware costs skyrocket as you have to start buying boxes capable of calculating the last digit of pi. Personally, I don't call that scalable. Call me wierd.
  • If Sun's stocks are any indication, they're on the hurt - much more so than many of the other companies on the NASDAQ indice...

    Last I looked, they were trading at 10.78!

    Ouch indeed!

  • Oracle still not open.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Evanrude ( 21624 ) <<gro.ocyttaf> <ta> <divad>> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:54PM (#2933289) Homepage Journal
    Oracle may be moving their backoffice to Linux but what about the database software itself? It is still a closed source proprietary application.
    I want to know when they will be announcing that Oracle is Open Source!
  • I'm sure this is just wishful thinking, but having just gone through the absolutely painful process of getting Oracle to run on RedHat linux, perhaps this move will eliminate the need to use a certain version of a certain distrobution to make it run. *shrugs*

  • larry larry larry... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mr. Quick ( 35198 ) <tyler.weir@gmailLION.com minus cat> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @03:57PM (#2933306) Homepage Journal
    .. i wish he would stop dancing around topics all the time, and just be blunt for once...

  • It's all about the customers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MichaelJ ( 140077 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:00PM (#2933331)
    I don't know anyone who would want their production Oracle database on Intel hardware. You can't just keep throwing faster cpus into the same outdated backplane and expect to get the kind of throughput performance that a db requires.

    Additionally, who with a production system isn't going to want both the hardware & software reliability and 24/7 support of the caliber that Sun provides?

    Don't get me wrong, I love Linux & use it as my primary platform. But I wouldn't deploy my db back-end on it. We used Suns at my last job for very good reasons.

    He may take the Sun out of Oracle, but he won't take the Sun out of the users, and if Oracle starts slipping on the Sun support, there's always Sybase.

    • Exactly. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Wntrmute ( 18056 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:18PM (#2933523)
      Those big machines aren't going away anytime soon. There's a reason why Intel hardware is so cheap. It's just plain not as reliable as Sun's.

      Not to mention that with what Oracle charges for it's very confusing clustering software, it was actually cheaper for my company to buy one more expensive Sun server to run Oracle on than lots of cheap ones + the clustering software. Since Oracle licences are a recurring expensce, and we just had to buy the Sun server up front, the disparity gets even worse.

      That reminds me, I have to take the opportunity to rant about Oracle pricing now. They actually charged us for a second license because our Oracle software is located on a NFS-shared network filer. This way, if the hardware of the DB server takes a shit, we can quickly mount the filesystem Oracle lives on, and start it on another box.

      They even said they would not have charged us a second license if we had a second machine powered off, which we brought up in the event of a hardware failure. They claimed that Oracle was providing us the benfit to be able to failover quickly. Umm, no, the network filer is. BEA doesn't charge us for this setup. iPlanet doesn't charge us for this setup. Why should you get to?

  • great! (Score:3, Redundant)

    by Syre ( 234917 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:01PM (#2933337)
    Great... first replace all the proprietary operating systems with open source systems like Linux and FreeBSD. Run your ultra-expensive Oracle on that.

    Then replace the proprietary Oracle with open source systems like Postgres and MySQL.

    Now we're talking!

  • An astute move for Oracle, great for linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by msoldo ( 546681 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:02PM (#2933350)
    Oracle has been losing a significant amount of marketshare to Microsoft's SQL server because SQL server is much cheaper. By putting their full support behind linux, oracle has a lower cost platform on which to compete.

    This should also go a long way towards bolstering the impression of Linux in the IT world. If Oracle is running linux, then it must be able to handle mission critical apps (so the agrument would go).

  • Natural Move for Server Vendors (Score:4, Insightful)

    by medcalf ( 68293 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:05PM (#2933379) Homepage
    This is a natural move for server (as opposed to host) vendors. Applications like Oracle typically are the only things on the server, or run with only minimal software designed specifically to run with them. (LDAP servers are another example, at least in the corporate space.) By using an existing OS that they can modify as they wish, they can optimize the system for their database, and vice versa. Because the OS is in use elsewhere, there are a number of available tools for administrators to use on their systems. At once, Oracle makes itself independent of large companies like Sun or Microsoft, and can potentially make a better product in the bargain. My guess is, there will be a specific flavor of Linux and specific supported hardware, once Oracle releases this into the marketplace.

  • grain of salt (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 )
    Wasn't Ellison the one who put the big push into 'thin clients' as well? I dunno about you guys, but I've got *tons* of those hanging around.

  • One Question.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 1stflight ( 48795 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:05PM (#2933390)
    What does Ellison see in Linux? *puts on his flame-retardant suit for this one*, for the businesses he supports (gotta give him credit folks #1 database co here, and not overnight) what does he see in Linux's future that Solaris can't match or beat already?
    • Well, Linux is more popular than Solaris. That alone is good enough. He wants to gain marketshare.
    • Besides marketshare isn't indicative of quality. MS holds the market in business desktops but it's certainly not the best quality. Personally I can't stand Oracle, you can take your ridiculously expensive memory and your 8 processors elsewhere, I'm sick of the downtime and horrible performance.

  • typo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by niekze ( 96793 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:06PM (#2933392) Homepage
    I think there's some typos.


    "We'll be on Linux no later than the summer, so we'll be running our whole business on Linux."

    I think he meant to say: "We'll be owning Linux no later than the summer, so we'll be running the whole business of Linux." I can't really back that up, unless you take the fact that Larry Ellison said it as proof ;)

    Seriously, this would be good for Linux in the big picture. Most of us would stick with our MySQL and PostgreSQL servers, but with Oracle...Enterprise credibility goes up. Additionally, all the industry behemoths (AOL/TW, Oracle) would fare well to bolster Microsoft's competetors.

    I might burn some Karma for saying this, but Linux is symbolically a pawn, being used by the giant corporations for leverage against their current giant corporation rivals.

    I also wonder how market share affects this. Linux is growing in the server market. Oracle isn't being used in these machines. Which means less money for Ellison. I wonder how this will work out. Any suggestions?

  • This isn't a win for Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ceswiedler ( 165311 ) <chris@swiedler.org> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:07PM (#2933403)
    ...it's a win for Intel. Larry says nothing in the article about the capabilities of Linux except that it's better than Windows "if you're on the Internet."

    What he really liked, apparently, was the fact that the hardware was cheap and easily replaceable. It's a win for clustering, certainly, but is it a win for Linux?

  • Mixed blessings. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nesneros ( 214571 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:07PM (#2933409) Homepage
    As glad as I am to hear that a big company like Oracle is making the move to Linux, I think that without the "core" Linux community remaining vigilant, it could result in problems down the road.

    On one hand, having a larger user base is definately a GOOD THING. Proving that Linux can provide the infrastructure for one of the world's top companies is a GOOD THING.

    Problems arise in the mid to long term possibilities. Will Sun ultimately lose so much business that they're driven out of the software market? Despite the fact that they seem to be sunsetting, they're still a software/OS player, and the more players in the field, the better the products (my belief is that Linux has achieved so much partly because it had Sun, SGI, Be, MS to prove itself against) all around. Its not like MS can provide Linux with any great technical challenges to overcome...

    And am I alone in worrying that having so many big companies like IBM, Oracle, God forbid AOL/TW using Linux may end up with them pushing development away from the needs of the average user? Sorof like getting a loan from the Mafia, you never know when or how you're going to pay up.

  • It's 2009. And the sole corporate survivor... (Score:3, Funny)

    by cooperj72 ( 83796 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:10PM (#2933430)
    is Microsoft as all of it's main competitors
    successfully destroyed each other as they tried
    to take down Windows.

    It all started when Scott McNealy in a rash of
    unintelligent banter retaliated toward
    Oracle by announcing "oh yeah! Well... well...
    Solaris will only be supporting Linux
    from now on too!"

    -J

  • A bit saddening... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pmz ( 462998 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:11PM (#2933435) Homepage
    Intel-based servers may be cheap and all, but I do not look forward to a future where the RISC-based manufacturers, such as Sun, IBM, and SGI, are totally displaced.

    Reality is that traditional RISC-based workstations and servers, such as Sun's higher-end Ultra and Blade workstations, are really a joy to work with. They are amazingly robust and flexible, since they typically are the result of long and thorough development and testing efforts. They tend to have useful lifetimes of about a decade, where they keep finding new roles and finally get mothballed after enjoying a last hurrah as a print server. They have genuine firmware, so you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bootstrap the system they way you want to. Their enclosures are very well engineered for easy maintainence, fewer moving parts, and good airflow. And on and on...

    Whenever I see the inside of an Intel-based server, I am a bit disappointed. Working with one tends to be disappointing as well. Truth is: you do get what you pay for.

    I hope Oracle doesn't learn too many hard lessons these next few years.

    • Linux != Intel (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fishbowl ( 7759 )
      I want Oracle 9i for UltraSparc Linux,
      and I want it now.

      Why does your message leave me wondering if you
      are aware that Linux runs on the very RISC machines you are praising?

    • Re:A bit saddening... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by system5 ( 167402 )
      I think that you are absolutely right, but hopefully, it will not be too long before we see at least a decently thought-out Intel-based server. Let's face it, with AMD's latest line of processors (the XP and MP's), there is enough processing power and bang for the buck to rival most larger scale systems from traditional UNIX vendors. Obviously, the weakness is in the bus architecture, BIOS-design, etc. A lot of this is due to the fact that comodity hardware vendors must still allow legacy software/operating system/applications (we know what these are) to run properly on their systems. I think that we will see some positive developments now that folks such as IBM are involved. Let's face it, IBM hasn't always had the latest and greatest, but quality and robust design has always been a staple of their products (at least from my experience.) Besides, if we really look at it, a PC is not too far from being a reliable server: a good solid power supply (redundant perhaps), a real bootloader rather than the BIOS, 64-bit PCI slots (and/or 66MHz ones too), and a well engineered rack-mountable case are some of the tweaks that come to mind mind at least, that can get a PC over the hump and be a reliable Linux server. I do agree that Sun hardware is a blast to work on. However, I'll take Linux hands down any day over Solaris in terms of usability. Solaris is a fine system, but over the years I've found that Linux has been able to adapt to *my* needs, rather than the other way around. And as for Linux on non-x86 architectures, I think that is excellent too. But there is a certain aura to the grass-roots nature of Linux on an x86 platform that is hard to match. I also think that if one builds a server from scratch, one can pick high quality components and make wise decisions, even with commodity hardware. There is decent gear out there for reasonable prices, you just have to give it some thought. Finally, I am very hopeful that we will see more and more projects and technologies which will allow us to build Linux-based commodity servers that begin to rival the robustness of their much more expensive RISC-based cousins. I would even be ecstatic the day that I can boot an x86 server without video :)

  • Oracle already runs on linux... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zsmooth ( 12005 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:15PM (#2933488)

    It seems from a lot of people's comments that they think that Larry is saying that Oracle will finally support Linux. Well, Oracle has run on Linux for awhile now, though it's been a lower priority. Patches come out for Solaris versions first, then Linux and Windows.

    All Larry was saying that at Oracle they'll be running their own product on Linux rather than Solaris. From which we can presume that they'll start making Linux a higher priority when it comes to patching...

  • I think it's healthy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kawaichan ( 527006 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:22PM (#2933552)
    I know it's probably gonna be a while until this actually would happen as big a**(TM) servers are still the way to go for super performance.

    This would probably force the big server makers to bring more innovation to the lineups and lowering the price.

    So at the end, Linux gains more marketshares, Windows gets even less in the server market and probably lower TOC for those big servers.

  • Replacing HP boxes with... ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by buckeyeguy ( 525140 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:23PM (#2933563) Homepage Journal
    Considering that the article says they're replacing some older HP hardware with the new Linux setup, I'm curious to know what boxes they propose to run the Linux on... assuming they had the beefiest HP hardware from 3 years ago, those would be some big boxes; a V2500 or V2600 could hold up to 32 CPU and 32Gb of RAM, as I recall...

  • Take Larry with a MAJOR GRAIN OF SALT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:24PM (#2933568)
    He also committed Oracle to CORBA, Java, and most other hyped technologies to come down the pike in the last few years.

    This isn't too say he's lying, but don't think Oracle is going to go chucking valuable platforms to back up his rhetoric.

  • Let's get this straight... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hieronymus Howard ( 215725 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:31PM (#2933628)
    Let's see...

    Oracle are saying that big servers will eventually die and be replaced by clusters of smaller servers running Linux.

    IBM are saying that clusters of smaller servers will be replaced by mainframe-class servers running Linux.

    Place your bets please, ladies and gentlemen.

  • Linux hurts UNIX vendors, not MS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Skim123 ( 3322 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:39PM (#2933695) Homepage
    One would think Microsoft is in some serious trouble with all of the large corporations you hear out there switching to Linux solutions. But ask yourself this: What systems do you think these companies were already running? More often than not, I'd wager they were using UNIX, and the reason they switch to Linux is to reduce costs.

    Switching to Linux, when all of your sysadmins know Windows, is going to cost in retraining. If your shop runs UNIX, the sysadmins will be ready to roll with Linux.

    So, you see, those who tout Linux and decry Microsoft are really taking an ironic stance. They are helping MS (by hurting their competition) when they advocate Linux.
    • I've been told of cases where ironically switching to Linux generated sales for Microsoft. My old University's Linux advocates convinced the school that very few professors or students needed the Sun workstations that the school was buying, that PC's with Linux would meet the needs of nearly all students and professors. What the Linux advocates did not expect was that once the decision was made to replace Sun hardware with PC hardware someone brought up all those useful Windows apps. The decision was quickly made that the PCs should dual boot into Linux or Windows NT.
  • Must be increased sunspot activity, Larry's outlining paradigms for the future again. Call me when he has a plan that survives longer than 6 months.

  • A cry in the dark (Score:4, Funny)

    by craw ( 6958 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:50PM (#2933788) Homepage
    In the dark bowels of a cubicle farm at Oracle...
    Programmers slouch in front of their computers...
    And read these fateful words..
    Spoken by their master...
    Perhaps in haste and bravado...

    We'll be on Linux no later than the summer,...

    First there is silence...
    Then, in one collective voice...
    For all to hear...

    "Oh shit!"

  • Ellison may be knifing his own baby (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brainvision ( 318711 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @04:56PM (#2933827)
    Ellison appears to be pitching cheapness and flexibility to his clientele, which is not a philosophy that Oracle software espouses (Linux is cheap and the licensing is flexible). I think that this *is* a win for Linux and Open Source software, but could be a problem for Oracle.

    By making this move, Larry will be exposing the high-end companies he courts to commodity technology ideas that they otherwise might not explore. Most of these companies have "more money than sense." Often they view free or open software with disdain for its percieved lack of support, or even for its percieved unAmerican philosophy. But after having their eyes opened in this fashion, they may start developing a keen awareness of how badly Oracle is screwing them.

    At the least, Oracle may introduce to these companies a culture of thriftiness, which is probably not in Larry's best interest.

  • Why Sun will be preferable to Intel Clustering (Score:5, Informative)

    by MattRog ( 527508 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @05:00PM (#2933865)
    Couple reasons why Sun still will be preferable to off-the-shelf, commodity Linux boxes for many a year (with or without Oracle's blessing) - and how to change it! (Disclaimer, we run Linux on our web and DB boxen and do NOT use Oracle (Sybase ASE in fact) and were burned by Sun in a deal we wanted for some 280's).

    Banks and others with lots of cash have traditionally enjoyed the "Let's buy a couple really really big boxes and replicate them everywhere" mindset and I don't think that will change. Clustering is way cool but I am not convinced the TCO is far less to cause large customers to switch their entire mission-critical, multi-billion dollar a day transactional systems to Linux.

    They will stay with what works for a long, long time. Why Larry's pronouncement of 'support' is interesting is that Linux is, for the most part, unsupported. Sun has hundreds (if not more) of engineers around the world on standby -- if your E10K goes down at 4AM they probably know about it before you do (since they have all sorts of neat things built in) and are already on the scene. With Linux? Not so much -- but Oracle is going to try and push the fears of 'what if it goes down at 4am!' out of their minds by saying "That's ok, we can fix it!". Linux and Intel need to offer much of the same features - I know Compaq has neat little remote monitoring cards with their servers, something like that which hooks into Linux and is a commodity (like video cards, or RAID cards, etc.) would help a lot.

    Yes, there is an inherent 'single point of failure' with big boxes. That is why they 'cluster' (in name only and not a special type of software) by replicating all their data from their master to several slaves. Currently Sun platform usually has MORE than ample room for growth and you buy 3 E15Ks simply to have warm-standby machines in case the first goes down (and you can always use the other two as readers).

    From a TCO standpoint it is far easier, faster, and cheaper to replace a single machine (under warrantee) than it is to have 20 small ones go down at night. Yup - you need to have redundant supplies on hand for the 'worst' situation - and if you have 100 Linux boxes in a nice array and an earthquake hits you now have to order 100 new boxes to replace your destroyed ones. Sun can get you a replacement (or replacements) installed and configured long before the first truckload of new PCs arrives.

    Further, you have to configure and maintain 100 boxes vs. a small cluster of Sun machines. I haven't had much experience in large-scale clustered Linux systems but I would surmise that making a kernel change on 100 Linux boxes would take more time and $$ than to 3 Sun machines.

    Plus, Sun's 64 bit architecture beats the pants off of Intel -- and in a large DB app you NEED that extra I/O (which is why a 220R with 450MHz x 2 CPUs will spank any dual Intel system out there). I have yet to see any head-to-head comparisons of Itanium and UltraSparc III, so perhaps Intel can rip that from Sun someday.

  • So, what about Red Hat's version of Postgres? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by baka_boy ( 171146 ) <lennon@day-r e y n olds.com> on Thursday January 31, 2002 @06:17PM (#2934380) Homepage
    If Oracle is going to be working with Red Hat to offer an "official" Linux version of their database, does that mean the end of the (admittedly rather pricy) Red Hat-branded version of PostgreSQL? If not, are they going to offer a migration path for users who start with the Postgres package, and eventually decide that they need the replication/Java support/marketspeak-compilance of an Oracle solution?

  • Uninformed comments... (Score:5, Informative)

    by aralin ( 107264 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @07:00PM (#2934620)

    These comments I could see in this article are the most stupid uninformed balast I've seen in a long time. Maybe its this way for all articles, but I know my ground here and can judge this.

    • Oracle is not replacing any Sun machines, but three HP machines.
    • Oracle development is done mostly on Sun/Solaris boxes, little time ago even the development environment was not even ready and ported for Linux. But whatever are the machines developers work on, there is a strong porting group to cover all the operating systems.
    • What moves to Intel-based machines is by no way the database (RDBMS), but the application server and maybe the business suite. Elisson himself said that he does not see RDBMS moving to Intel-based hardware in near future, though it might be possible one day.
    • Support should be done for Oracle Application Server on RedHat, which is quite feasible especially after contracts with RedHat, Inc.
    • When Ellison says that Oracle will run the whole business on Linux, it does not mean that every machine in the company will be replaced with something running Linux, but just that these few servers running the Business suite with Oracle business information will most likely move to Linux. I would bet it would be some IBM high end servers running Linux, though.
    • Trolls, flamers, cowards. Thats the crowd on /.

  • O.R.A.C.L.E (Score:4, Insightful)

    by felipeal ( 177452 ) on Thursday January 31, 2002 @08:21PM (#2934978) Homepage
    This is slightly OT, but I can't find it anywhere else (i.e., Google), so whatever.

    The true meaning of Oracle is:

    One
    Rich
    Asshole
    Called
    Larry
    Ellison

  • After reading all the posts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jsse ( 254124 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:40AM (#2936219) Homepage Journal
    I found the majority believe that:

    1) Linux = Intel

    2) Larry on Linux = Larry bids SUN and other UNIX vendors farewell

    3) Why Oracle while we can get PSQL?

    4) PSQL can *never* replace Oracle

    5) It's a conspiracy! Larry wants to squeeze more from us because Oracle cost more on Intel platforms!!

    I just speak from a DBA's standpoint, that:

    1) As many has pointed out, Linux is not necessary = intel. Oracle being on Linux doesn't mean abandoning others.

    2) If you have really admin/develop on Oracle you must know that Oracle relies heavily on Java, and Java is SUN's. I can only see Oracle and SUN would get more close than any other time in history.

    3) & 4) PSQL can *not* beat Oracle now, if you get to know more about Oracle you'd understand how insufficient PSQL is. However, it doesn't mean PSQL, or any other DBMS, can't beat Oracle in the future. I still remember the day when Oracle 5 was regarded as 'cheap' and 'pathetic loser' among DBMS. Look at Solid DBMS, it goes from free to a very successful commercial DBMS in just a couple of year. :D

    5) I failed to find a way to buy a cheaper Oracle for non-intel platforms, compare Mhz by Mhz. :) No matter how you calculate, Sparc's license fee is at least 1.5 more expensive than Intel's. I've the price sheet on hand. However, if you'd really find a way to run Oracle on Sparc cheaper, don't hesitate to tell me!!! :)

    My guess(again, from a DBA's view) is that Larry is not satisfying with the database business in midrange systems. Oracle works great on mainframe and it generates multi-billions profit, while it's always been a big trouble support midrange market because the variety is vast(you name it, SUN, AIX, HP-UX...all with lines of different hardware and software version). Compare to Linux it is relatively simple(note relatively).

    Frankly I'm not sure whether Larry and his crews would like to use Linux to fight in midrange market, I'd really doubt about it not because I've little confidence in Linux, but because I felt that even Oracle staffs has then same attitude to Linux as those in Microsoft, that Linux is good for fighting below-midrange market. Of course, I'd disagree if they ask me - I run parallel-replicated Oracle server with Linux's load-balancing with RAID 5 and JFS. It's very depending on how many Linux developers/admins can support the midrange market.

Slashdot Top Deals

You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape. - Ellyn Mustard

Close