Re: Why doesn't Oracle care about Linux as IBM does?

tuomas.hosia_at_helsoft.fi (Tuomas Hosia) wrote in message news:<3b7bbde4.4236799715_at_news.helsoft.fi>...

So I will try to explain my opinion.

Disclaimer:
My opinions are affected because of my background in financial sector. I have no idea how small and start-up companies works, so sorry for my ignorance.
:-)

> >Who cares about Linux ?
>
> Optimal solution for wide range of workstation or server uses.
>
> As well you could ask 'Who cares about Solaris?'.

I'm not quite sure. Yes, Linux is very suitable for some sollutions, but range is not too wide.

> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Anything that runs on IBM mainframe is not a toy. It also fills Unix
> '98 certification requirements, although it's not certified due the
> huge cost of certification.

Yes, I was quite suprised that IBM has ported Linux to mainframes, but maybe that's more marketing issue than real offer. We've bought recently zSeries, but of course, not with linux on it.

> If Linux would be limited to PC's only, I would agree with you, but
> this is not the case (unlike the well-known hype-OS).

Oh, that's very difficult trivia. :-)

> You could even run your Sun-boxes with Linux.

Why ?

> > Maybe Linux is really cool, stable, has a lot of
> >features. However question is: Who give me a support for it ?
>
> IBM is giving me the support. If you can't find support, it's not OS's
> fault, it's available.

Perfect, but as I know IBM, when you want support fromt them for Linux, you'll lost main advantage - low price, because IBM is not the cheapest one. If I pay for support from IBM then there is no need for Linux, I can buy AIX as well.
I want to say that there is nothing like cheap solution in the enterprise market. You have to pay big money for support (if you want a professional one) and doesn't matter which OS you have.

> On the other hand, it's easy to build in-house support and not very
> expensive, either.

Yes, but you still need an external support, just for case of trouble.

> >If our company encounter any problem with Solaris, then after one call
> >we'll have building full of SUN consultants, because we're maybe the
> >best SUN client in country.
>
> And you pay a high price for that. Probably more than many smaller
> company earn.

Yes, but you should know that companies who are spending 100*10^6 $ anually in IT area have different points of view. They don't care if they should pay one hour consultant fee 20 $ or 200+ $, because those amounts are under their resolution. They just want a professional solution, preferably from company of the same size. Maybe this is rather pretentious, but that's the way it is.

> Using consultans is the rich man's way to do things.

Yes, indeed.

> > With Linux I need to hire external Linux
> >consultants.
>
> Maybe you do, I don't. Anyway, Linux-consultants are much cheaper than
> Solaris-consultants (or Windows- )

Even If they're from IBM ? :-)

> Anybody who understands Solaris, could understand Linux in few days
> enough to actually do something on it.

And vice versa. Majority of Unixes are pretty same.

> > I do not know how good they're,
>
> Rule number one is: there are no good consultans, unless proven
> otherwise.

Sad but true, but if you have support from big international company, then there's a fair chance that they have someone capable to do a good job. :-)  

> > because no certificates
> >are available and no strong background in commercial company.
>
> Certificate is just a piece of paper when there is something to be
> done. It doesn't guarantee that certified person can do something
> about _your_ problems.

True, but problem is that when you try to hire an independent consultant or support from small company you have no idea if they're good or not. With certificate you have a chance that consultant at least saw that piece of SW before. :-)

> Lack of commercial background is a good thing,
> no overpriced consultans, as especially with Windows.

I do not know your field of work, but I must disagree.

> >Linux is
> >maybe the best platform for Internet servers (like proxy, mail, web),
>
> Not the best, but good enough: simple and cheap.

My opinion is that if I need a proxy or mail then I can pick a Linux with no fears.

> >but for database applications commercial UNIXs are more suitable.
>
> In corporate environment, yes. In small bussinesses, no.

Yes, I already said that my opinions are affected by my position in financial sector.

> Company with five people can't afford HP9000, HP-UX and Oracle on top
> of that, but they can afford a PC running Linux and Oracle.
> (And they had to fight even that Oracle, it's not cheap)
>
> Would you instead recommend NT and/or SQL Server for small
> companies?
>
> I wouldn't.

I don't want to be sarcastic, but for five people even Access is suitable. :-)
And MS SQL can run pretty good (if you don't want a things too challenging).
Some smaller database (let's say up to five gigs) can run with no problems on SQL. I'm not a fan of SQL, because my lowest requirements are usually bigger than the highest level that can be achieved from SQL, but for smaller demands, I can't fully disclaim MS SQL.

> >P.S. Just my humble opinion. No intentions to start flame wars. :-)
>
> Opinions didn't look very humble so flames will fly. ;)
> (Just small ones, I think.)

Yes, people who knows me usually said that I'm the person who easilly dander people around. :-)))

--
_________________________________________

Dusan Bolek, Ing.
Oracle team leader