Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle Makes Red Hat Kernel Changes Available As Broken-Out Patches

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the hey-why-not dept.

Open Source 104

Artefacto writes "The Ksplice team has made available a git repository with the changes Red Hat made to the kernel broken down. They are calling this project RedPatch. This comes in response to a policy change Red Hat had implemented in early 2011, with the goal of undercutting Oracle and other vendors' strategy of poaching Red Hat's customers. The Ksplice team says they've been working on these individual patches since then. They claim to be now making it public because they 'feel everyone in the Linux community can benefit from the work.' 'For Ksplice, we build individual updates for each change and rely on source patches that are broken-out, not a giant tarball. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to take the right patches to create individual updates for each fix, and to skip over the noise — like a change that speeds up bootup — which is unnecessary for an already-running system.'"

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gift horse = Mouth (5, Interesting)

blade8086 (183911) | about 2 years ago | (#41975971)

Yes, and I'm sure Oracle-owned K-Splice has NO alterior motive for doing this, esp considering the RH change was purportedly made in response to oracles so-called 'unbreakable linux' (Aka oracles for-$ RHEL builds)

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (2)

sethmeisterg (603174) | about 2 years ago | (#41976019)

Who cares? It's a free source of individual patches. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (2, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41976159)

It is free. .. unless you didn't buy that Oracle RDBMS license?

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

blade8086 (183911) | about 2 years ago | (#41976179)

you mean like patches you could already get from following lkml? or just running the red hat kernel as is?

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

blade8086 (183911) | about 2 years ago | (#41976185)

apologies - I see the word 'individual'. yes.

but I *care* because its hypocritical, dishonest posturing under the guise of altruism. which you should care about as well.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976229)

They don't claim to be doing it out of altruism. They quite clearly say they are doing it for their own benefit.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (3, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 2 years ago | (#41979273)

Who cares? It's a free source of individual patches. Enjoy it while it lasts.

That sort of attitude is incredibly short sited.

Red Hat have contributed a HUGE amount to the open source community over the years. If they were pushed under by Oracle taking all their work and selling it at half the price (this is effectively what Oracle do) then these patches will dry up forever and Linux will lose its largest and most open source friendly commercial distributor. At that point Oracle may well pick up the majority market for commercially supported Linux and they will be far worse to the open source community than Red hat are.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41981739)

Red Hat have contributed a HUGE amount to the open source community over the years.

Then Red Hat understands the GPL license used by the Linux kernel and the association risks. Red Hat still makes money. I wouldn't worry about Red Hat.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976053)

I didn't remember that Oracle owns KSplice, Oracle is evil!

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976075)

How eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil of them to make the individual patches available for all. Slaughtering babies isn't even this evil.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (4, Insightful)

blade8086 (183911) | about 2 years ago | (#41976203)

I have 0% problem with the patches - but 100% problem with the dishonesty motivating the effort and the lack of transparency behind it.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (5, Interesting)

zidium (2550286) | about 2 years ago | (#41976777)

Yeah, it's called a "hostile fork", and several good projects have **died** because of it.

I remember the first ED2K GUI client for UNIX, xMule. The coder seemed to work on it full-time, because, he said, he believed in creating a secure messaging/sharing mechanism to use in dictatorships and such. Then along came aMule, which started off as a full copy of his GPL code. They even replaced all of the copyright licenses and removed his name from every file except brief mention in a hidden document. Then they proceeded to copy every single change he did. It seemed they were copying quickly while he was slowly developing. Then, all over the Internet (especially the wikipedia page), they would attack him personally and his project.

I still used it until he gave up on it completely (he said it wasn't worth the heartache of being attacked for trying to create something useful for people) after about a year. He would always say he had no alternative under the GPL. That there was nothing he could do except take down the public SVN access and mash up all the source into one gigantic file, but even that didn't stop the copiers.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#41977127)

One are of course free to not use GPL code if one doesn't like it.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977771)

....Then along came aMule, which started off as a full copy of his GPL code. They even replaced all of the copyright licenses and removed his name from every file except brief mention in a hidden document. Then they proceeded to copy every single change he did. He would always say he had no alternative under the GPL. That there was nothing he could do except take down the public SVN access and mash up all the source into one gigantic file, but even that didn't stop the copiers.

No alternative under the GPL? He could have sued them.

The GPL has nothing to do with his problems.

Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977985)

Because that would work. I would happily sue John Does here, in the middle of the East European nowhere; it wouldn't cost me a dime, I'm sure and justice would prevail.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977869)

Doesn't GPL require attribution in order to allow enforcing the license? Also, where I live, the copyright law also includes so called "author rights", namely attribution, that cannot be relinguished no matter what.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978757)

He would always say he had no alternative under the GPL.

Then, clearly, he didn't know what he was talking about. Licenses don't apply to the copyright holder; they apply to redistributers. He could certainly have release xMule as binary-only, or as open source with a license that prohibits copying and redistribution (think Microsoft's "Shared Source" licenses). Perhaps he didn't want to do those things, given his goals in creating the project, but to say he had no choice is simply nonsense.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

nebulus4 (799015) | about 2 years ago | (#41979155)

Then, clearly, he didn't know what he was talking about. Licenses don't apply to the copyright holder; they apply to redistributers. He could certainly have release xMule as binary-only, or as open source with a license that prohibits copying and redistribution (think Microsoft's "Shared Source" licenses). Perhaps he didn't want to do those things, given his goals in creating the project, but to say he had no choice is simply nonsense.

It's not a nonsense. Maybe he used alot of GPL code in his project. He is no longer the only copyright holder in this case. And rewriting major parts of the program might not have been the option for him.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41980367)

I don't think it's nonsense. In theory you might get blood from a turnip but if you are fighting someone bigger, it just might not be worth the effort. Oracle's takeover of Sun has been bad. For instance their updates are the slowest ones I have ever seen (Acrobat and Java come to mind).

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 years ago | (#41979969)

Care to provide a link to details on the conflict? Not that I don't believe you, it's just that it'd be interesting to see what went on,

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41980413)

They even replaced all of the copyright licenses and removed his name from every file

That alone is a criminal offense, at least in the US. Specifically USC 17506(d):

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

I do believe they count that per notice - that is per file.

He would always say he had no alternative under the GPL. That there was nothing he could do except take down the public SVN access and mash up all the source into one gigantic file, but even that didn't stop the copiers.

If it was done under the terms of the GPL, then no. If it wasn't, then there's plenty he could have done. Though I can sort of understand that as a coder you don't want to get involved in legal paperwork and just say "fuck it". But it sounds to me that he didn't make any effort to protect his rights legally.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#41980925)

Well, the GPL gives you the right to modify anything as long as you license it under the GPL and include the license, and that would include the copyright notices. Otherwise we'd have a problem with something like the BSD advertising clause.

Now, if they didn't release their code under the GPL then that is a problem. You could sue them for re-using your code if they didn't release it under the GPL (and it wasn't fair use).

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (2)

TypoNAM (695420) | about 2 years ago | (#41981317)

Well, the GPL gives you the right to modify anything as long as you license it under the GPL and include the license, and that would include the copyright notices.

The GPL gives nobody such rights to remove/move copyright notices. You only have the right to append your name and year to such a notice when you contribute changes to the work. Original copyright notices must be left alone as Kjella mentioned for United States in USC 17506(d), and it is required in the GPL as mentioned on the FAQ: I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL? [gnu.org] .

Otherwise we'd have a problem with something like the BSD advertising clause.

The classic BSD license is incompatible with the GPL as only the so called revised or new BSD licenses that removed the advertising clause are compatible with the GPL as stated in the FAQ: Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL? [gnu.org] . So now would you please stop making assumptions and actually read the license you so carelessly claim it allows people to do things it clearly does not.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#41982249)

The FAQ merely requires an "appropriate" copyright notice.

You can remove somebody's name from a copyright notice if they give you explicit permission to do so. If they license the source to you under the GPL, then they did exactly that. If you don't want somebody to remove your name from the copyright notice, then don't tell them they're allowed to do it!

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41981773)

They are dishonest because they are Oracle? Like Red Hat and Google offer their services solely out of the goodness in their heart?

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41979365)

I have 0% problem with slaughtering babies - but 100% problem with the dishonesty motivating the effort and the lack of transparency behind it.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41979403)

What dishonesty? They clearly state they are doing this for their own benefit and just releasing it for anyone else who wants it since the GPL compels them too.

Re:Gift horse = Mouth (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41978155)

Ulterior in the sense that shooting someone 30 times suggests murder as an ulterior motive.

RHEL.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976001)

If you want a real enterprise class O.S. ditch RHEL and go with Solaris 11.

Re:RHEL.... (2)

blade8086 (183911) | about 2 years ago | (#41976211)

So you're saying - if you want a real 'enterprise class' OS, be sure you are using an Oracle(TM) Brand Product? (either ksplice or solaris)?

Re:RHEL.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41980273)

Good job on figuring out the joke. Really, well done.

Re:RHEL.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976765)

If you want a real enterprise class O.S. ditch RHEL and go with Solaris 11.

I tried that, but they shot me in the face and put me to work as a slave, while shouting nonsense about -Lambs-.

Re:RHEL.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978761)

Yes, of which the source will be released "after the commercial release".... oh wait, Solaris 11 was released in November 2011... Fuck Larry and his horde of evil.

Re:RHEL.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41979619)

On the other hand, if you want an OS that actually runs the software you need, correctly, smoothly, efficiently and with fewer crashes, go with Linux.

I am a Sysadmin in a Solaris shop. The amount of extra effort involved in taking apps that "supposedly" run on Solaris and making them actually run, without absorbing all of the available CPU, and the amount of time spent restarting them after they have crashed, is obscene. Getting the same apps running on Linux is a breeze, but we can't possibly do that.

One reason to have faster bootup is to get a (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976009)

First Post

Re:One reason to have faster bootup is to get a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976045)

Damn you, RedHat!

If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (5, Insightful)

angryfirelord (1082111) | about 2 years ago | (#41976123)

Red Hat wouldn't need to start obfuscating their patches in the first place. You'd think with all the billions of dollars Oracle and its consultants mooches off of companies that they would at least be able to develop their own Linux distribution instead of relying on something else.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976205)

Freetards like yourself are why most people stay as far away as possible from the GPL. "How dare you use this GPL code in complete compliance with the license since you violated [insert ad hoc unwritten rule]!!"

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | about 2 years ago | (#41976437)

Freetards like yourself are why most people stay as far away as possible from the GPL. "How dare you use this GPL code in complete compliance with the license since you violated [insert ad hoc unwritten rule]!!"

His post did not even mention the GPL -- only you did, you foul troll. The GP seems only to be referring rather to commercial companies (Oracle) essentially repackaging Red Hat's distribution and marketing it as something completely different. There is no legal issue being raised here, only an ethical one about respecting the work of others.

However, it could be debated that what Oracle is doing does go against the GPL in some way, since the GPL requires that the source code be conveyed in the preferred form for working with. Since Red Hat is distributing essentially combined patches that obfuscate the actual changes being made, they are probably at least going against the spirit of the GPL (and maybe even violating the license), by distributing the code in a form that discourages others from understanding these changes and working with them. Quoth the GPLv2:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976531)

However, it could be debated that what Oracle is doing does go against the GPL in some way, since the GPL requires that the source code be conveyed in the preferred form for working with.

They are conveying source diffs. That does not violate the GPL in any way. You are making shit up.

Since Red Hat is distributing essentially combined patches that obfuscate the actual changes being made, they are probably at least going against the spirit of the GPL (and maybe even violating the license), by distributing the code in a form that discourages others from understanding these changes and working with them.

How is breaking out the changes into individual source patches making it harder for people to understand the changes or to be able to work with them? In fact it does completely the opposite. And again, distributing source patches does not violate the GPL no matter how many times you repeat your gross misunderstanding of the GPL.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Since they are providing source code diffs that seems to be precisely the very "preferred form" that your quote speaks of.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41976563)

Red Hat is in no way violating the GPL. The GPL licenses do not require the distribution of individual patches. Red Hat supply the source code for their kernel as a whole, in perfect compliance.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

micheas (231635) | about 2 years ago | (#41976851)

That is probably arguable.

As previously mentioned in this thread the license that give Redhat the right to distribute says

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Which is in the view of many (most?) developers means a copy of the git repository.

The whole subject is moot until someone with substantial contributions to the kernel gets upset.

It would be sort of funny to see Oracle sue Redhat for violating the GPL though.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977205)

Which is in the view of many (most?) developers means a copy of the git repository.

No it doesn't. Git didn't even exist at the time the license was written. You are making up post hoc rules.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977997)

The "prefered form" needen't be explicitly named in the license. It means just that, the prefered form for working on the code, if that changes over time, it changes over time.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41979421)

No, the rules of the license don't "change over time" unless amended to say so. Anything else is whining after the fact and making up unwritten rules.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

lindi (634828) | about 2 years ago | (#41978017)

For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976877)

I remember when Apple started forking KHTML. They released giant diff blobs and slashtards shit a brick over it. Funny how slashtards keep quiet when RHAT or GOOG do it.

That's not true (1, Funny)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41977177)

Red Hat's blobs have been discussed at great length on Slashdot.

Re:That's not true (-1, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41977211)

Yeah and the mental gymnastics used to defend RHEL were hilarious.

fuck off .. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977951)

> I remember when Apple started forking KHTML. They released giant diff blobs and slashtards shit a brick over it. Funny how slashtards keep quiet when RHAT or GOOG do it ..

Re:fuck off .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978503)

is dat sum meme arrows?

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (5, Insightful)

See Attached (1269764) | about 2 years ago | (#41976265)

Based on the job Oracle does maintaining their Tech Stacks, they would destroy the kernel. Case in point, the huge security issue with Java that Oracle feels best to be fixed in February. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/javacpuoct2012-1515924.html#PatchTable [oracle.com] Just because you can, doesn't mean you should republish source code developed and collimated at considerable expense by someone else. Responsibility? http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2012/08/28/protecting-users-against-java-security-vulnerability/ [mozilla.org] ?? Wait till February. Anonymous's best friend.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976313)

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should republish source code developed and collimated at considerable expense by someone else.

What a crock of shit. It's GPL code. Shut the fuck up, freetard.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41976367)

Blaw, blaw, blaw.. freetard...

Not typical Microsoft Fanboi talk, so I'm guessing you're an Apple Whore?

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976615)

No, we hail from the Linux Haters' Blog. Y'all Freetards need to be educated over here.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (2)

srh2o (442608) | about 2 years ago | (#41976911)

Go practice your trolls and come back. Nothing says dated and 5 years ago like mentioning Linux Hater's Blog

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977189)

We're not trolling, and the Linux Haters' Blog is still going strong, thanks to you Freetards still being morons. Though, in a way you're right, we won the battle against the Freetards years ago: no longer are the tech press afraid to criticise the Linux desktop, no longer are there hundreds of idiots from Ubuntu Forums commenting on every tech press article telling people to use Ubuntu on their desktops, no longer are Freetards thinking they can finally get desktop Linux to gain more than 1-2% market share. You guys are throroughly defeated, thanks to your OS making for a shitty desktop OS, but also thanks to people who aren't afraid to speak out against the hordes of /. and Ubuntu Forums morons who advocate for it, people like The Linux Hater. You guys are defeated and that's why you have to dismiss posters like myself as 'Troll', because you've got nothing else.

Nothing says dated and 5 years ago like mentioning Linux Hater's Blog

Says the person posting on Slashdot! Now go ahead and try the 'Linux is just a kernel!' argument; but realise when you do that you're just side-stepping every point I made and (if you really want to be that anal) expand 'Linux' in your mind to say: 'GNU/Linux/[XMonad | GNOME | KDE | Fluxbox | E17 | LXDE | ]/X11/[GTK | Qt | ' or whatever floats your boat. Also, note I said the Linux desktop so you can't get around the argument by going on about server or embedded market share.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977455)

Oh leave him alone, he just found out he has prostate cancer.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41980575)

Remember this little rhyme:
"Using the term 'freetard' proves that you're a retard".

It also proves that you have an unhealthy and obsessive hatred of an inanimate/abstract object (Linux) and should have some suitable therapy before you start wandering around in the middle of the freeway wearing a "Linux is teh eeeevil!" placard.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41981391)

Translation: WAAAAAH someone disagrees with me, so I'm going to call them insane!

Remember this little rhyme: "Using the term 'freetard' proves that you're a retard".

Wow, how many hours did you spend working on that one, genius?

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41981765)

You forgot to bring teh funny freetard.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977911)

Well, I suppose in a way you are right; in terms of Linux hate, we've already lowered our expectations of a good fight to the point where they've already been met by the freetarded community.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977409)

Is this a spam to announce the linuxhater stopped using Twitter and went back to its blog? (a troll is not a person)

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (0)

zidium (2550286) | about 2 years ago | (#41976807)

You're such an idiot!

The guy is **clearly** stating that just becuase you can hostily fork doesn't mean you should.

ONLY FREETARDS ARGUE THAT YOU SHOULD, so you failed it, hard.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41977227)

Providing source diffs for interested users is making a "hostile fork"? Oh the hypocrisy of Slashdot. When Apple provided huge blob diffs they were criticized to no end. When RHEL does it it is defended at all costs because of big, ebil Oracle. If they didn't want people to be able to do thus they shouldn't be using and releasing GPL code.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977345)

Oracle is big and evil.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (4, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41976747)

Red Hat wouldn't need to start obfuscating their patches in the first place. You'd think with all the billions of dollars Oracle and its consultants mooches off of companies that they would at least be able to develop their own Linux distribution instead of relying on something else.

FYI: CentOS exists. You'd think with all of Red-Hat's money they would at least be able to give back the patches to their downstream in a usable separated form, considering that's how they got them from upstream sources. I'm against any form of making it harder for your users to support themselves, even if your business is the support business. I just vote with my feet and wallet, and stopped using and recommending them.

By your logic, one could make the statement: "You'd think with all the free software Red-Hat and their consultants mooches off of Linux and other upstream FLOSS projects they would at least be able to develop their own Kernels and Compilers instead of relying on the existing work of others."

Don't like Oracle much either, but I take open sourced work wherever available.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977465)

Don't like Oracle much either, but I take open sourced work wherever available.

That's very naive. Any company can take open source and close it, assuming they own the entire copyright. Didn't some company close the Solaris source code? Any company that had a history of closing the source should not be trusted. I bet such a company would close ANY source they could at the first opportunity. Fortunately, no single company owns GNU/Linux source code, but Oracle is specifically keeping as much proprietary as it possibly can (ksplice, dtrace for linux).

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (2)

angryfirelord (1082111) | about 2 years ago | (#41979571)

I can see what you're saying, but the problem with that comparison is that Red Hat does contribute back in other ways to the community. They're one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel and they've also paid developers to create their own projects, such as with the nouveau driver. Meanwhile, Oracle seems to go in the opposite direction, such as the recent moves with MySQL. So, from an ethical perspective, Red Hat is a hell of a lot higher compared to Oracle or other companies.

Re:If it wasn't for Oracle Unbreakable Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976901)


Red Hat wouldn't need to start obfuscating their patches in the first place. You'd think with all the billions of dollars Oracle and its consultants mooches off of companies that they would at least be able to develop their own Linux distribution instead of relying on something else.

You'd think with all the billions of dollars Oracle and its consultants mooches off of companies that they would be able to afford an intern to diff out the Redhat patches. In fact, Redhat must have anticipated this very thing, and we see that it was done in the KSplice division and Redhat's move barely cost Oracle a rounding error on their balance sheet.

Redhat's move doesn't hurt or hamper Oracle at all, but it makes work more difficult for the rest of the community. Was this just very poorly thought out or is the offered motive not the true one?

From an accounting perspective (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41977171)

this just seems like a wasted cost by Oracle to maintain a large parallel fork. Oracle could simply pay Red Hat to maintain the changes that Oracle's customers require. Instead, they are having to develop their own in-house Red Hat Linux development team. That's certainly got to be a more expensive and less efficient route than paying Red Hat to do the work for them.

Re:From an accounting perspective (1, Interesting)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41977237)

Considering Oracle made $37 billion in revenue and $10 billion net income last fiscal year, I doubt the costs are all that much to them.

Re:From an accounting perspective (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41977535)

Making a good profit is not a good reason to run a business inefficiently.

Re:From an accounting perspective (2)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#41977977)

No, but it's damn good evidence that it's not being run inefficiently.

Re:From an accounting perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978723)

Fail. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Re:From an accounting perspective (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41979441)

How exactly is Oracle running things inefficiently? They gain customers for their products and support contracts from their fork. What exactly is the "inefficiency"?

Re:From an accounting perspective (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 2 years ago | (#41980059)

Making a good profit is not a good reason to run a business inefficiently.

That's precisely how business works. Companies answer to shareholders and shareholders only care about profit. You can talk all you want about "ethical investors" or "green investors" or other such investors but at the end of the day profit rules all.

Re:From an accounting perspective (1)

Sollord (888521) | about 2 years ago | (#41977613)

Oracle could buy Red Hat and still have $8billion in net income so moneys probably not much of an issue

Now waiting for Red Hat to (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#41976125)

release patches that upgrades Oracle 9 to 11.

RedPatch? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976263)

Better cover that RedPatch with an iPad

Re:RedPatch? (-1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41976647)

If I had mod points, I would give it to you!

Re:RedPatch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977141)

Maybe that's why you don't have mod points?

Re:RedPatch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977301)

True, I give them off almost immediately.

MySQL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41976891)

Would be nice if Oracle would break out their MySQL patches.

Re:MySQL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41981375)

You don't understand. MySQL is dead. That situation is not going to get better. Use something else.

Oracle greed that eventually will kill Linux (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977169)

It's a matter of simple economics. A long story, short: RH is developing some of the Open Source wares out there but they have to pay for this work, they have to pay for the QA that they are doing on the products so they sell support for RHEL.I'd say perfectly acceptable, given that they return something to the community. Oracle says, why pay RH for RHEL when all is Open Source anyway ? We better get what RH is doing, for free, change the label, sell our support and make some easy money. Perfectly legal and acceptable in a capitalistic world. Now, if whoever made that decision would have seen past their tiny noses, they would have realized that doing exactly that would undermine RH's ability to develop and implicitly the quality of the OS that they take and resell .... Sounds like shooting themselves in the foot ? And everybody else using Linux commercially around them ? Looking at the numbers widely available on the Internet, you will see that RH has a 13 % contribution to the kernel while Oracle a mere 2 %, we can probably extend safely the same numbers for other products in the RHEL etc.. Who should we trust for giving us a better commercially supported OS ? I am not a conspiracy theory guy but wouldn't linux disappearance (exagerated !) offer direct benefit to... Solaris ... which is owned by Oracle ..... Hmmmm !?

You fAIL 1t? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977271)

Where are Oracle's testicles? Larry has a pussy? (0, Troll)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#41977429)

Where are Oracle's testicles? Larry has a pussy? Oracle is sinking lower and lower? Normally someone stands up for the benefits which are given to them. In this case small-ball Larry or any of his sons appears to have abused their undersized gifts; it is known that small men with small penises tend to overdo their fits. The father of the chickens children with small-sized genitals should amend and rather help out - RedHat is no large enemy; it is not the Red Army. Microsoft is. Apple may become, and currently with far larger pockets than RedHat or Microsoft.

Spending corporate money on this? Oh, so let us read what they have say, shall we? At https://blogs.oracle.com/ksplice/entry/introducing_redpatch [oracle.com] we can read:

"To understand why we've created this project we'll need a little history. In early 2011, Red Hat changed how they released their kernel source, going from a tarball that had individual patch files to shipping the kernel source as one giant tarball with a single patch for all Red Hat-introduced changes. For most people who work in the kernel this is merely an inconvenience; driver developers and other out-of-kernel module developers can see the end result to make sure their module still performs as expected."

Well, so they keep using RedHat's work, as all other do too, btw. But now, they break it out and make it more readily available to others. So, maybe the Larriones do have some pubertal indications after all.

Still, what does Oracle to for Linux, which makes them exempt for common courtesy?

Here is an two month old article http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2012/08/oracle-leading-linux-then-and-now [linuxfoundation.org]

which argues that Oracle does a lot of things for Linux. Hmmm... Maybe there are more than five inches after all?

Still, at http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/oracles-new-kernel-rhel-clone-real-truth [networkworld.com]
we can read:

"Don't get me wrong, Oracle does contribute to kernel and other open source development. In fact, Oracle was one of the top 20 employers by kernel contributions from the 2.6.33 kernel (as measured by Greg Kroah-Hartman). Specifically, Oracle was responsible for about 1.3% of the changesets in 2.6.33, just after AMD with 1.6%, and kernel heavyweights Texas Instruments and Fujitsu (1.9% each), and Nokia (3.0%). It's far, far behind Red Hat's 11.6% and even IBM's 4.8%."

Ok, more than five, but not by much... Still, the backing is definitely supported by Larry Ellison - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4-5z5l2HjA [youtube.com]

So, in summary, RedHat was at that time doing a lot more of changes, but pushed them out as solid patches, with little or effort to ease it for other users; and it appears to have been an effort to stall competitors like Oracle.

Where are Oracle's testicles? Between Larry's and his sons legs. Larry has a pussy? No.

This is business. Show me yours, I'll show you mine. Code, of course.

Re:Where are Oracle's testicles? Larry has a pussy (1)

Sollord (888521) | about 2 years ago | (#41977637)

WTH?

Does this rambling rant mean you hate Oracle and Larry Ellison and have some deep seated mental issue related to your hate?

Re:Where are Oracle's testicles? Larry has a pussy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41977681)

No, it means that people rant about anything Oracle does, while knee-jerk supporting RedHat.

Oracle is doing business and Larry and his sons are doing fine. /G.

Re:Where are Oracle's testicles? Larry has a pussy (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#41978033)

What's with your fascination about Ellison's genitals? Is this thing supposed to have the kind of sexual innuendo as it has?

flawed statistics (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 2 years ago | (#41978491)

You're looking at *one* specific release. What if Oracle only once sent in code and it made it into 2.6.33? You need a larger dataset in order to come up with anything significant.

What sort of code was committed? If it were some hardware drivers for SUN hardware they made themselves, it's not that much benefit to other companies, only to a few end users that buy very expensive SUN hardware to run Linux on it, that will run just as well on "generic" hardware that's in a lower price class. I'm not saying that's what happened, but you need to factor this in before you come up with any conclusions.

The RedHat patches that are released as a big bunch, are the patches they backported to the "old" kernel they base their Enterprise distribution on. These are not *new* patches that are sent upstream to be merged in new kernels, to fix unfixed bugs or support new hardware or features. RedHat backports security, stability and in some cases new hardware to the old kernel. These are merely existing patches that are being applied to an old kernel. Only maintainers/users of clones of RedHats' Enterprise Linux benefit from this. Anyone that wants to use a new kernel has no use for these, since they are already in the new kernel by default.

RedHat also contributes to a lot of the *new* features and drivers in the kernel. They don't make any hardware themselves, but they fix other vendors hardware drivers if they are buggy. They are large contributors in several filesystems, SElinux and many other parts of the kernel.

No, I don't work for RedHat, nor hold any of their certifications. I in fact do have certifications for Oracle Solaris products. I think both products by themselves are pretty good, but I despise the business practices or Oracle and the way they continuously rip their employees, the open source community and their customers another one at any opportunity they can find or create.

Oracle steal Red Hat Kernel Patches .. (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about 2 years ago | (#41977935)

There fixed the title

If 'Oracle Linux' is a whole independent distro, then why does Oracle have to clone RHEL update service?

"The Ksplice team has made available a git repository"

The Ksplice team have stolen Red Hats kernal patches.

"This comes in response to a policy change Red Hat had implemented in early 2011, with the goal of undercutting Oracle and other vendors' strategy of poaching Red Hat's customers".

What other vendors are attempting to poach Red Hat customers?

Re:Oracle steal Red Hat Kernel Patches .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978009)

Stolen in what sense? They aren't even all patches written by Red Hat, not that it matters.

Larry Ellision (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978013)

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009125120/americas-greediest-2009-top-ten ....

1: Larry Ellison

Larry Ellison appeared on our “greediest” list last year. He may appear every year. No one may better personify, personally and professionally, the self-absorption, arrogance, and insensitivity that separates the merely greedy from the greediest.

In 2008, Ellison, the CEO of Oracle business software, contested the $166.3 million tax appraisal on his Northern California estate. The assessment appeals panel gave him a $3 million tax refund in a ruling that will cost the local school system an annual $250,000, the cost of hiring and supplying three teachers.

Ellison, the holder of a $27 billion fortune, spent a good bit of 2009 sparing no expense to build a yacht speedy enough to win next year’s America’s Cup, the world’s top sailing race. His new racing yacht has a $10-million mast “18-stories tall and sails large enough to cover a baseball infield.” Some 30 designers and scientists spent 130,000 hours putting the vessel together.

For more casual water fun, Ellison takes to the seas on his 453-foot mega yacht, the Rising Sun, a boat he co-owns with Hollywood mogul David Geffen. This five-story little ship boasts 82 rooms and a basketball court that doubles as a helicopter pad. The construction cost in 2004: $200 million.

subplugOn the business side, Ellison did his best in 2009 to top the $557 million he took home as Oracle’s CEO in 2008. His magic formula: Ellison’s a serial merger. He buys companies, takes their customers, and fires their workers. His top 2009 gobble-up: Silicon Valley’s Sun Microsystems.

The Sun merger, analysts believe, will almost certainly end up eliminating more jobs than the 5,000 positions lost when Oracle bought out rival PeopleSoft.

And did we mention the dividends? Oracle this past spring announced plans to pay out its first dividend. The announcement, CNBC estimated, meant a $57.5 million quarterly check for Ellison in May and another $230 million in dividend checks over the next 12 months.

In 2009, the old Silicon Valley joke still rang true: “What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison? Answer: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison.”

And? (1)

nukem996 (624036) | about 2 years ago | (#41978311)

How is this news? Anyone can get the current sources for any Redhat package, customer or not. Those sources contain the patches. All Oracle is doing is downlaoding them and importing them into git and making that git repo public. The company I work for already did the same thing since we use a custom kernel but still want the Redhat patches.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41981163)

> Those sources contain the patches

Um, no. The RedHat source rpm for the Linux kernel package contains only a single patch file aggregating all the changes made since the previous release. This is different to all the other RedHat packages: those contain multiple patches - one for each separate change.

Free features from Oracle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41978519)

It will come with the "Ask" toolbar and will require your homepage to be set to ask.com.

You cron will host automatic updates that will run silently in the background and will secretly update whether you like it or not.

Ah... and your browsers will all get FREE "RedPatch Console" addons/plugins that will make them unstable and take up RAM.

Oracle wants to mimic the Apple model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41981393)

Oracel wants to control everything from the silicon up to the software. This was the message Hurd gave at an opening of the 25th Anniversary of Sparc at the Computer HIstory Museum in Mountain View a few weeks back.

Red Hat has contributed ALOT to make the Linux community a soild environment and the last thing we need is Oracle undermining a company like Red Hat.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>