The real issue here is not the kernel per se as Red Hat contributes the most to upstream development of the kernel, ever.
The real issue are the backports and patches to the vanilla kernel that ships with RHEL 6 (2.6.32) that enhance the performance, reliability and other related application compatibility that Red Hat does to their customers. And some of the backports are from the quite recent kernel and the commitment from Red Hat to support it for the period of 10 years. Leechers such as Oracle and Novell (not SUSE, its Novell) are more interested in that in order for them to get the customers of Red Hat and the ability to support RHEL products. It has nothing to do with Red Hat going proprietary (they did release the RHEL 6 kernel as a tarball), but more into making Oracle and Novell honest by shipping and compete with their own products and offerings rather than selling support for their competitors product. We never heard MS selling support contract for Oracle database, so whats the difference here? -wariola- On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:29 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > My title is just a nasty parody. > As of my readings, Oracle seems "dissatisfied" with it's previous > partner RH and come out with their own distro instead. > > I'm not sure how much this unbreakable Linux boxset's pricing, but > having Oracle as the backup, serious users may have confidence with > them. > > But to be safe and peace of mind, simply pay for not so cheap Red Hat. > > This ripped off and rebrand with their own distro is familiar, yes? :) > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nope. Red Hat is not evil. > > > > The real evil is Oracle, who takes Red Hat Enterprise Linux, cherry pick > > which patch that Red Hat had provided in its SRPMS, and add new patch > that > > will make their database run fast. Rename that distro to Oracle > Enterprise > > Linux, and charge the customer very high for support service. > > > > So, their job just to determine which patch is suitable, and then charge > for > > profit. So easy. > > > > And why Red Hat should make it easy to them to cherry pick the patch? Red > > Hat work so hard, but in the end their client moved to Oracle Enterprise > > Linux. Give them a whole code dump, and let them figure it out by > > themselves. > > > > Still GPL compliant, and CentOS won't care. They are just rebuilder. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM, [email protected] > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Fact: > >> > >> > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/red-hat-turns-on-oracle-and-other-red-hat-linux-clone-makers/8485 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Join #ISOC [Internet Society] today and create connections with > >> Internet Users around the world! > >> > >> Simplified Link: http://goo.gl/xmG90 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> general mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.foss.org.my/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > > -- > > Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.foss.org.my/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > > -- > Join #ISOC [Internet Society] today and create connections with > Internet Users around the world! > > Simplified Link: http://goo.gl/xmG90 > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.foss.org.my/mailman/listinfo/general > -- .: war|ola :. Use Fedora Linux for better computing experience http://fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.foss.org.my/mailman/listinfo/general
