Very interesting points of view. I don't want to bite off more than one can chew but...in light of what has been written...which interpretation could we give (as SL users) to the very recent setup of a Fedora Server (Working Group) <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server> given the existing relationship between Red Hat and Fedora? hope the question could be seen pertinent (or not too much OT) to the matter SL users are discussing.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Paul Robert Marino <[email protected]>wrote: > The only reason Oracle is mentioned is because Oracle is doing what they > always did. Providing a platform for their proprietary products and using > the free speech software and open source community to make their bottom > line look better without contributing back. Frankly they are an old company > which hasn't adapted with the times. In a time when even Microsoft has > released OS components under the Apace 2 license ( which frankly gives me > images of a squadron of pigs armed with liquid nitrogen bombs flying over > hell) they are ridiculously trying to hold on to their old model and just > have huge amounts of reserve cash and market saturation which won't keep > them going very long. Also if you look at the truly huge data warehouses > very few of them are using Oracle databases and most are migrating to > supported variants of PostgreSQL despite the lack of good training or any > real industry respected certification because it works better. > > > > > -- Sent from my HP Pre3 > > ------------------------------ > On Jan 14, 2014 19:01, Patrick J. LoPresti <[email protected]> wrote: > > So I decided to check the "Competition" section of Red Hat's annual > SEC regulatory filing (10-K): > > > http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/000119312513173724/d484576d10k.htm#tx484576_1 > > (see pages 11-13) > > "Oracle" and "Microsoft" are each mentioned seven times in this > section, far more than any other company. Granted, Oracle _Linux_ is > only mentioned once, but once is enough to show that Red Hat takes it > seriously. > > Interestingly, "Fedora" and "CentOS" are also specifically named as > competitors. So I can rephrase my earlier question: How does Red Hat > believe the acquisition of this competitor will make them money? > > (I have my guesses, obviously. Hint: What is Red Hat's strategy for > ensuring that Fedora does not compromise RHEL sales? What do you think > their strategy will be to ensure the same for CentOS?) > > Anyway, enough speculation from me. We will all see what actually > happens soon enough. > > - Pat > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes I meant oracle. > > Im not sure if oracle is the major competitor in os market for rh. > > From my expirience it is still windows vs unix in enterprise > infrustructure. > > Speaking of oracle clone - it comes only with oracle products. And even > > then, not that often. Again these are my observations over couple of > yeara > > and ill be happy to reconsider if you have some statistics to support > your > > point. > > > > From what I understand "code for free" was never an issue for rh. The > > companys bussines was to _provide services_ on top of open source os. > > > > On the contrary, I think that the way to grow the rh bussines is to work > in > > as many open source projects as possible. This way more people are > fimiliar > > with this particular version of linux. > > >
