Craig White wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 12:33 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:30:49PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>>> If you mean, ´free as in free beer" ... I guess it´s a matter of
>>> keeping things simple... as they try to mirror the RHEL package set...
>>
>> You misspelled, once again, "leech". It's a simple word, you should
>> really use it more often considering how applicable it is in this
>> thread.
> ----
> nit picking someone whose first language isn't English? Better to build a
> barrier to communication than to actual discuss the actual issues I guess.
<snip>
I think John was saying that Oracle isn't trying to "mirror" the RHEL
package set, but "leech" off the RHEL package set.

mark


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:37:34PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> ----
> nit picking someone whose first language isn't English? Better to
> build a barrier to communication than to actual discuss the actual
> issues I guess.

Oh please. His mastery of the language is better than many native
speakers.

> From my experience with Fernando on Fedora-List... I am quite sure
> that he prefers to use free software and while I don't share any
> enthusiasm for Oracle, everyone is free to choose what they install
> on their boxes and I sense that what you really want to do here is
> ridicule.

If I wanted to ridicule I would; this, sir, was far from it. I'm just
pointing out facts from this and previous threads.





John
--
Michelle Backman - For those that think that Sarah Palin is too intellectual.
-- Bill Maher
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:45:40PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:

> I think John was saying that Oracle isn't trying to "mirror" the RHEL
> package set, but "leech" off the RHEL package set.

Just to clarify so there are no mistaken impressions.

Oracle are, in the form of Larry Ellison, a bunch of leeches that are
profiting off the blood and sweat of others. They are doing everything
they can to, quite literally, steal the customer base of Redhat. And
while some among us may think this is fine, just a form of capitalism,
it isn't: the company they are trying to steal customers from is THE
SAME COMPANY THEY ARE GETTING THE SOURCES FROM FOR THEIR OWN DISTRIBUTION.

Sorry to shout, but it seems that a few of you want to brush this under
the rug. If you want to spin it as just business as usual you are free
to do so; but you're deluding yourself and basically full of it. And
please stop referencing Novell, SuSE or anyone else. This isn't about
them. This is solely about what a reprehensible company Ellison put
together and their shady and downright shitty business practices.





John
--
Failure is the condiment that gives success its flavor.

-- Truman Capote (1924-1984), American writer, Portraits and Observations,
The Essays of Truman Capote, "Self Portrait" (1972)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 07/20/2012 09:19 AM, Chris wrote:
> Hello CentOS Guys :-)
>
> Oracle has created a new Website to capture CentOS Users
>
> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/

This will be my only comment to this thread.

The issue that Oracle highlighted, that existed in the first 3 quarters
of 2011, has been fixed. CentOS now has 2 full time developers and I
have created a graph that shows the same information, in 2012 (EL6
Kernel release times) that Oracle depicted:

http://bit.ly/NEdAB8

As you can see, in 2012 CentOS has delivered the Kernels 48% faster than
Oracle (25 days compared to 37 days).

CentOS also delivered the bugfix kernel for EL6 released yesterday 17
hours faster than Oracle.

The speedy updates are not just kernels ... if you check turn around
time for all packages in 2012, CentOS has been much faster than Oracle.
Expect this to continue.

Also, expect the CR repo to be used for all future point releases ...
not just if we encounter problems.

While I will not be petty enough to post a Migration script from Oracle
Linux to CentOS (I can't believe they posted that ... REALLY?), I will
likely help anyone who asks me for help with that specific migration.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 07/20/2012 10:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 09:19 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Hello CentOS Guys :-)
>>
>> Oracle has created a new Website to capture CentOS Users
>>
>> http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/
>
> This will be my only comment to this thread.
>
> The issue that Oracle highlighted, that existed in the first 3 quarters
> of 2011, has been fixed. CentOS now has 2 full time developers and I
> have created a graph that shows the same information, in 2012 (EL6
> Kernel release times) that Oracle depicted:
>
> http://bit.ly/NEdAB8
>
> As you can see, in 2012 CentOS has delivered the Kernels 48% faster than
> Oracle (25 days compared to 37 days).
>
> CentOS also delivered the bugfix kernel for EL6 released yesterday 17
> hours faster than Oracle.
>
> The speedy updates are not just kernels ... if you check turn around
> time for all packages in 2012, CentOS has been much faster than Oracle.
> Expect this to continue.
>
> Also, expect the CR repo to be used for all future point releases ...
> not just if we encounter problems.
>
> While I will not be petty enough to post a Migration script from Oracle
> Linux to CentOS (I can't believe they posted that ... REALLY?), I will
> likely help anyone who asks me for help with that specific migration.
>
> Thanks,
> Johnny Hughes

You're getting in the way or Oracle's truthiness!

--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

> Came here asking about OpenJDK 7 support in CentOS 6.3, as I plan to
> run a Java based app server on it.
> Since I haven't installed Oracle's yet on the Sun box, no need still
> to ask any questions (I don't even know if there are mailing lists for
> Oracle's or web based forums).
>

You'll be pleased to know (as Johnny pointed out to me the other day)
openJDK 1.7 is fully supported by TUV in 6.3 ... so it's a fully
supported part of CentOS and not just a tech preview

Johnny I know you said you were only going to do that one post but I
hope you're still reading the thread - thanks for the graph... it's
most enlightening.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 07/20/2012 08:12 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> And I*love* the chart... never mind that RH changed the build structure
> to give Oracle pain, and it hurt us

That change affects Oracle because they update and modify the kernel.
Since it's not pristine + patches like other SRPMs, Oracle has a moving
target and may need to manually fix each of the patches that they apply.

CentOS simply rebuilds the package, and I'm reasonably certain that I
recall statements from the CentOS maintainers that Red Hat's changes
don't affect their process. I don't think your argument holds water.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 22 July 2012 20:02, Gordon Messmer <yinyang@eburg.com> wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 08:12 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>> And I*love* the chart... never mind that RH changed the build structure
>> to give Oracle pain, and it hurt us
> That change affects Oracle because they update and modify the kernel.
> Since it's not pristine + patches like other SRPMs, Oracle has a moving
> target and may need to manually fix each of the patches that they apply.
As I understand, that's not exactly true. They have two kernels, UEK
which is not even the same version as the upstream and the one that's
identical to the upstream. They don't have to follow every single
upstream patch and apply to theirs. I have the impression they have a
completely separate bunch working on their own kernel & modifications.
I might be mistaken...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM, <m.roth@5-cent.us> wrote:
> Um, there *is* a free version of Oracle.

I thought you meant "free as in freedom" and not "free as in free beer".
Yes, probably there is a free - limited - restricted -tryout -
development etc version fo Oracle database has IBM as provided of DB2
as well...

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/db2/express/

FC
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Ken godee <ken@perfect-image.com> wrote:
>> Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Why don't they just continue to do something more useful
> like continue the support for "OpenSolaris"!

To be honest, it never had any traction. At least not down here. And
it goes back to the Sun days, pre-Oracle.
Back in 2006 and 2007 Sun spent a lot in marketing and was down here
at Linux events with a Solaris booth or offering CDs etc... nobody
paid much attention to them...

I think the market for Solaris is the big corporations that use it to
run on high-end Sun/Oracle hardware (mostly Sparc), and those prefer
to pay to have a commercial grade solution with support. My guess is
that ORCL thought that they'd never get any ROI over 'free' Solaris,
nor any sizeable market share gain wrt Linux...

While some features like zones and zfs are interesting, Linux has also
improved as of late to fill some of those gaps...

FC
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos