Oracle Linux adopters labelled 'idiots'

Steven Deare, ZDNet Australia

02 April 2007 04:59 PM

Tags: linux, mclaren, red hat, oracle, blumberg, stockbroker, vendor, idiot

One of the first converts to Oracle's support for Linux has revealed the public backlash it has endured since their decision to drop Red Hat.

Melbourne company Opes Prime Stockbroking told ZDNet Australia that in the weeks following its announcement to adopt Oracle Linux, upset Linux enthusiasts phoned, e-mailed and wrote about the company online to complain at the decision.

"People called us out of the blue to tell us we were idiots," said Opes executive director Anthony Blumberg.

He also fielded a call from an unhappy Red Hat Australia and New Zealand managing director Max McLaren.

"I said, this is probably the first call I've had from Red Hat since we've been a customer," Blumberg said.

Opes received little communication from the vendor during their contract, he said, and was not about to change its stance.

Meanwhile, McLaren told ZDNet Australia Opes had acquired Red Hat support subscriptions with the purchase of two servers from channel partner Dell. The hardware vendor then was responsible for providing Red Hat support to Opes.

Nevertheless McLaren said he was "not at all" disappointed with Dell.

"It was difficult for us to prove our worth to the customer," he said. "They hadn't complained to us about anything being wrong."

Linux enthusiasts also slammed the company on bulletin board systems across the world. Most believed the Oracle offering to be inferior to Red Hat's, a vendor that has been at the forefront of Linux's gaining popularity.

However, the stockbroker is happy with the support Oracle provided. Opes has a three-year contract for Linux support, and is using Oracle Enterprise Linux, modelled on Red Hat 4.

Linux runs Opes' server infrastructure which consists: four for production, two for staging, one for development and another for disaster recovery.

Opes' use of Oracle's application server and database for an online retail system project was a key consideration in forgoing the third-party vendor support the Red Hat operating system offers.

"We only use Oracle at the moment. So long as Oracle support what we do, we're happy," said Stuart Coggins, head of IT at Opes. "The whole Red Hat offering is everything to everyone but we don't really need that."

Another benefit was to have only one support team.

"I've been doing this for a long time, and there can be a lot of finger pointing between support teams," said Coggins. "Now we have the same support group the whole way through."

Opes is one of the few known Oracle Linux customers in Australia.

Talkback (45)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 45 comments

Add your opinion

True ColoursJohn -- 02/04/07

Linux users really showing their true colours here, they cannot take commercial reality into their stride and allow companies to take their own road to success. They obviously believe their is only their way or the the hate way. Reminds me of a religious discussion which results in people losing lives

The windows man is backAnonymous -- 02/04/07 (in reply to #320077254)

John, as a well know brainwashed windows 'user' and 'linux and opensource' hater in all its forms, your comments here are very predictable.

Gang warfareJohn -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077257)

But the problem is now you have gangs of Linux people tied to their RH Colours or SUSE colours or their Debian or Unbuntu colours, very quickly the "open community" has forgotten what is good about what they can achieve and fallen into an internal turf war, where only MS and the like can win.

If you split into many camps from one collective resource you cannot achieve the sam impact

Not all Linux users are the sameAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077254)

Some us are more than able to understand commercial reality.

Some of us even have jobs supporting Linux in a commercial environment.

I also think there are alot of unrealistic Linux users out there, but they dont have a monopoly. There are more unrealistic windows users, even if that is only due to more people using windows.

RedHat and OracleSid Boyce -- 03/04/07

Oracle will one day purchase RedHat and I shall read about it on ZDNet. Oracle has only moved the first piece on the chess board.

They're not idiots.....Night -- 03/04/07

They are complete morons and they should return their computers to the store. In fact they should not be allowed to touch a computer or go around one ever again. Do you know why? Because Oracle has a hard enough time supporting their flagship product(remember the Database?) in a reasonable fashion which make sense to a normal human being highly trained and skilled in I.T.. And now Oracle is the OS vendor too? The decision to change shows a serious lack of experience, especially with Oracle products. What a lousy call. In fact it reeks of being a PR stunt. I would not be surprised to hear if they were getting paid by Oracle to make the change.

Night of the Oblique TableauRex Alfie Lee -- 05/04/07 (in reply to #320077266)

You poor unfortunate. Perhaps some lullabies might help you through your crisis, whatever that may be. Or maybe some warm milk.

Next time Night, try thinking before typing. For instace, "Am I having a rational revenge & are my comments intelligent or am I a loose cannon with only one neural connection, joining my finger to the keyboard".

Perhaps then you may say something at least intelligible but perhaps I was right about the loose cannon.

Its Linux who has failed,Anonymous -- 03/04/07

its a sad indication of the status of the Linux/FOSS community, when its now not if you are a "windows" or Linux user, but its what flavor of Linux you use, and if you are not in the right "camp" you are the enemy.

why on earth would anyone want to consider using linux for/in their business.

if it not oricle Vs Red hat, its Novell, but the end result is the same, the self destruction of the Linux/Foss movement.

its very sad, when Linux was once an operating system/suite with some potential, now its just seperate factions of fanboys, who will ensure the destruction of the (once strong and unitied) FOSS movement.

so keep going and show the world who the real morons are. .

you know who the winners of this infighting will be, it will be MS, Windows and Microsofts products and services.

linux now is more like a street gang, or mafia, you'll be pushing for 'protection money' next..

Just a small groupCraig Ringer -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077267)

The worst thing is that the true idiots you refer to are just a small group of incredibly badly behaved religious zealots within a community that's usually fairly rational and decent.

Unfortunately, from the outside it's very hard to see that, because the morons are extremely loud and disruptive, while everyone else is just trying to get things done.

You're quite right, however, in that they're driving people away from OSS. Not just users, either, but contributors and developers who just can't face the insane zealots anymore. Eventually they'll have very little to express their zealotry about if it keeps on getting worse at this rate. They certainly don't help actually develop anything useful.

FUD Alert!Anonymous -- 03/04/07

OK, so let me get this straight. These guys bought two servers from Dell with RHEL on them, which means that *Dell* owns the sales and support relationship, and somehow Red Hat has dropped the ball? Please.

Oracle has blown its cred (again) with the BS claims that they "displaced" Red Hat at Yahoo. Yahoo, not Red Hat, blew that claim out of the water. Now Oracle is claiming a "big win" with a whopping two servers. Yeah, Larry, whatever. Wow, you really pwned Red Hat today, eh?

Very simple reason for thisAnonymous -- 03/04/07

Anyone who wants to see an end to this sort of religious fanaticism needs to figure out a way to also bring an end to the FSF.

There is a very old saying, "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter."

Richard Stallman is the single source of this kind of behaviour; he is who has inspired Linux users to behave this way. If there was a way to abolish the FSF, that would get rid of vitriolic cultishness among Linux users. That organisation is the source of the problem.

I love my four basic freedomsAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077272)

"Anyone who wants to see an end to this sort of religious fanaticism needs to figure out a way to also bring an end to the FSF."

Errr, do you want me to stop using GNU software? I mean, personally? I'm hardly a 'fanatic' nor a 'zealot'.

Why can't I enjoy these four freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

What have I ever done to you? I'm not harming anyone by using GNU software, not even myself. These four basic freedoms aren't horrible or antisocial! Freedoms 2 and 3 actually sound quite altruistic to me!

"If there was a way to abolish the FSF, that would get rid of vitriolic cultishness among Linux users. That organisation is the source of the problem."

Why do you want to 'abolish' the Free Software Foundation? Would you abolish a sports team because some of its supporters are anti-social?

If you don't like the idea of these four basic freedoms (and of course the GPL (whichever version)) then you don't have to use GNU or GPL'ed software. No one forces you to use this software.

Your real issue is with irrational tribalism, not with Stallman, nor with the Free Software Foundation.

The 4th "freedom" is really an obligation.Anonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077300)

The 4th "freedom" is really an obligation.

You are obligated to share the changes you've made.

A philosophy built on a lie is sad.

no obligationAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077306)

There is no obligation to share your modifications.
You can modify a progrom to suit you and be happy with your modified code just for yourself.

I think your are confused with the way the GPL work, wich is only one flawor of free software license and require you to keep your modifications free ONLY if you share them (but doesn't require that you share your modifications).

The GPL obligates you to give away your modificationsAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077309)

The GPL obligates you to give away your modifications.

"The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions."

I know the difference between a "freedom" and an "obligation".

The GPL forces an obligation on you.

BSD style licenses do not.

IncorrectAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077316)

"
The GPL obligates you to give away your modifications.

I know the difference between a "freedom" and an "obligation".

The GPL forces an obligation on you.

BSD style licenses do not.
"

This link should be instructive:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist."

There. You didn't have an understanding of GNU philosophy. Clearly, if I take any Free software, modify it, fix bugs in it, or add functionality to it, I can *choose* to be anti-social and keep these changes to myself. I would have no 'obligation' to share these changes with anybody else, nor would I be 'obligated' to tell anybody else about said changes.

I'm glad the FSF isn't arrogant enoughAnonymous -- 04/04/07 (in reply to #320077337)

I'm glad the FSF isn't arrogant enough to take away your private right to do what you want with your own code.

But code isn't truly free if it comes with an obligation to give away your intellectual property as the GPL does if you wish to distribute your executables.

Other people's codeAnonymous -- 04/04/07 (in reply to #320077341)

> But code isn't truly free if it comes with an obligation to give away your intellectual property as the GPL does if you wish to distribute your executables.

The reason you must distribute "your intellectual property" (which, of course is nonsense in itself - its "copyrighted works" you are distributing) is the fact that inside that executable there is OTHER PEOPLE'S GPL-licensed work. Therefore there is the requirement to license the whole work under the GPL, if you decide to distribute. You aren't suggesting that it is fair that YOU get to decide how SOMEBODY ELSE may license their work, are you?

If you can separate that out (i.e. your own work) in such a way that this is an independent work, you can ship that under any licence you like.

Small correctionAnonymous -- 04/04/07 (in reply to #320077356)

> distribute "your intellectual property"

Should be:

distribute "your intellectual property" under the GPL

Of course, you can also pick not to distribute at all, in which case GPL doesn't apply.

GPL restrictionsFritz -- 24/04/07 (in reply to #320077357)

GPL does not give the option of distributing the original code without your patches when packaged with a patched binary. You either give away your ORIGINAL, PERSONAL changes or you give away nothing.

You can reverse engineer a GPL'd package & distribute it under another license, but you are obligated to give away your work if your work modifies a GPL'd package.

That is not a freedom, it is a requirement that you WILL either reinvent the wheel or not accept payment for the use of, or conceal your extension/modification.

This is good for the free software community, but makes it rough for the programmer who relies on the income from his work to feed the family.

Of course such a programmer has the option of having nothing to do with the FSF and stick with supporting only FOSS that is not GPL'd ... Call it the 5th Freedom :P

You have the rightJohn -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077300)

You absolutely have the right to do with your own software and how you want to use it etc without anybody dictating how it should be done.

what the article is based on is the fact you do not have the right to abuse another organisation for doing something that you deem is inappropriate based on your own set of rules

clarificationAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077311)

I read the article; I was specifically responding to someone remarking that the Free Software Foundation should be 'abolished' because the poster was basically blaming RMS for the behaviour of anti-social fanatics and zealots.

Don't careAnonymous -- 03/04/07

Honestly, I think most people in the Linux community doesn't really care.

Does it matter as long as it isn't windows?Thoreau -- 03/04/07

Linux is Linux all the way around. If a customer wants one throat to choke and are happy then who are we to say no? Oracle RAC is an extremely complex configuration that integrates with the OS(sysctl.conf)- and because of that overlay having Oracle support it's own OS is one less tech to talk to when your server is down. Oracle is it's own entity in most cases and stands alone. It needs to be a rock. Whether RedHat does a better job at supporting Oracle or Oracle does a better job at supporting a RedHat clone is the difference here. It's easier for Oracle to cater to an open OS, than RedHat catering to a closed database. But if Oracle slips up, and ticks people off- RedHat will reclaim those clients with ease. It's a free market folks. This is what market evolution is all about- and the customer wins.

Intention of OracleAnonymous -- 03/04/07

Everyone knows the main intention of Oracle is destroy Red Hat. Oracle doesn't care their products run on Linux or Windows. They just want to sell. How much did they contribute to open source world? But Red Hat has done many to Linux and open source products. If the main supporter of Linux is gone, do you think Oracle will defend Linux any more? This is just the revenge of Larry Ellison to Red Hat. I think it is immoral what Oracle is doing!

Oracle's contributions to open sourceAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077283)

This post shows that you aren't as knowledgeable as you would have one believe. Oracle has made a lot of contributions to the open source community. They recently open sourced their TopLink persistence layer and all of their "ADF Faces" code.

Linux zealotsCraig Ringer -- 03/04/07

Irrespective of your views on the company's actions, what the heck is with calling them and insulting them?

As an open source user and developer I'm becoming increasingly unhappy with that section of the community. They're usually unproductive, they take OSS & free software like a religion (especially the "unthinking belief" bit), and they're painful to see, deal with, or be around.

Some of these people are giving the whole community a bad name, and I wish they'd take their "advocacy" somewhere else and let us get on with getting things done and having fun doing it. Calling and insulting people, threatening them, harasssing journalists, and the other apalling behaviour of these idiots is unacceptable and totally unhelpful. Go become soccer hooligans instead, you'll clearly be good at that.

meh. Zealots are everywhere.Anonymous -- 06/04/07 (in reply to #320077293)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

Thats not a zealotAnonymous -- 16/04/07 (in reply to #320077468)

That's the CEO of the most successful software company in the history of the business, not to mention a great public speaker.

You would be surprised how popular he is at conferences when he speaks... he goes nuts.

If you make billions of dollars from your company, you are allowed to act insane. This is not the same as the idiots who call to harrass a company for choosing between 2 companies for support.

ReligionCraig Ringer -- 03/04/07

You hit the nail on the head with religion.

Like in religious discussions, a small group of insane zealots make the whole community look like dangerous crackpots, while the enormous majority are actually just quietly going about their business.

Also like in religious discussions, it ends up being the zealots that matter. As an OSS user and developer I find this extremely depressing, because there's nothing I can do to stop these idiots.

Oracle SupportAnonymous -- 03/04/07

As someone who actually has to use Oracle support regularly for their middleware, and infrastructure products, I pity any admin who has to deal with them regularly.

Their products are poorly QA'd and their support staff doesnt understand how they work together. They're documentation is generally out of date or incomplete.

Oracle has proven to me countless times that they are far more concerned with getting new "features" out the door than whether or not they work. We have a full blown Oracle 10g environment including their ripped off version of Apache (OHS), webcache, OC4j, portal, OID, DB and SSO servers running in an HA production environment as well as staging and development environments... frankly it gives me nothing but headaches and I doubt their linux support is any better.

just my 2cents...

We need one LinuxJohn -- 03/04/07

I'm sick of the 101 Linux versions. Linux companies need to start working together more rather than just creating more factions.
I would love to see the day when there are two main Linux distros. I don't care which one, there just needs to be one. Linux can never fully take on Windows as a serious competitor until there is some sort of standard.

Then do something...Anonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077314)

> Linux can never fully take on Windows as a serious competitor until there is some sort of standard.

What makes you think that this is what Linux companies want to do? In fact Red Hat explicitly said that they have no intention of doing this (on the desktop) just yet.

Oh, and if you're sick of 101 Linux version, patches are always welcome. Leaders capable of merging all the development effort too. ;-)

au contraireAnonymous -- 03/04/07 (in reply to #320077314)

"I'm sick of the 101 Linux versions. Linux companies need to start working together more rather than just creating more factions."

(a) the development model means that linux is not a traditional 'product' 'owned' by a 'company';

(b) different distributions share the same tools, APIs and kernel. Differences exist in package management systems (these are (1) Red Hat Package (RPM), (2) Debian Package (deb) (3) source/makefile based (gentoo) );

(c) Linux distributions can be made for different specialised purposes, e.g. server, desktop, network infrastructure. Linux can be built from scratch (Linux From Scratch, Hardened Linux From Scratch), although this is not a necessary process for an end user in order to install and use linux;

(d) there are only a few major distributions, usually divided along package management lines.

(e) Installation of Linux is *not* *necessarily* arcane any more. A distribution like Ubuntu is very much 'get on and ride' - an installation of Slackware would be more involved, and building and booting to an 'Hardened Linux From Scratch' system ... well, yes, that is quite arcane.

"I would love to see the day when there are two main Linux distros. I don't care which one, there just needs to be one."

Why? This is a diverse community; people have different usage in mind. A 'one-size-fits-all' approach is incorrect for this problem-domain.

"Linux can never fully take on Windows as a serious competitor until there is some sort of standard."

Some people think that this is what Linux is all about; I don't. Microsoft operating systems are irrelevant to me - I don't rub my hands together in glee because I'm not using MS products any more. Honestly, when I sit down in front of my linux systems Microsoft doesn't even come to mind! Linux is not a Windows 'competitor' - its an operating system. It can be used for different purposes, sometimes in the same problem-domain as Windows, other times not.

Use it if you like - if you don't like it then more power to you. I've been using it for ten years - honestly, I don't miss Windows.

"we" need?flabdablet -- 06/04/07 (in reply to #320077314)

"We" don't need One Linux to Rule Them All. We already *have* One Windows to In the Darkness Bind Them :-)

If *you* are sick of 101 Linux versions, just pick one for *you* and stick with that. Preferably, contribute to its development and make it better. If you're looking for solid basic functionality with better ease of installation and ease of use than Windows in a desktop environment, my personal recommendation is Ubuntu. If you have other priorities, there are other distros that may suit you better. The point of having 101 flavours available is that not everybody *likes* chocolate.

The very diversity of the non-Windows community, of which the Linux community is a part, is what's keeping the OS ecology robust and healthy.

Linux will never "win" over Windows in some titanic Battle of the Monoliths; nor should it. What it will do is keep driving improvements in computing for the general benefit of all.

The trouble with Windows is not that it's in some abstract sense "worse" than Linux - the trouble with Windows is that for a while there, it was starting to look like the Only Choice. The continued existence of a healthily diverse Linux community is what we all need, to make sure it never comes to that. Monopolies really don't benefit anybody but the monopolist.

Learn how to read, pleaseAnonymous -- 03/04/07

> The GPL obligates you to give away your modifications.

No, it doesn't.

Hmm...Anonymous -- 03/04/07

Gee, I wonder how much the author was paid to run this article?... Well, I am not only a Linux user and system administrator, but I also repair Windows boxes... Now, while Redhat isn't particularly my favorite. I can't say that I know any Linux user that would 'call a company' just to complain... Moreover, I do have some friends that do pay for RHEL support, and I can guarantee that they do get calls from Redhat, and do get support... Which I'm certain that Oracle Linux provides also.

This actually reminds me of a story (more like a campaign) that Laura Didio of Yankee Group (in Boston) ran on Microsoft indemnification policies being 'suprerior' to any Linux support... It turned out that Yankee Group had been paid by Microsoft... Yet Ms. Didio ran an article stating that people (mind you no actual names had ever been discovered) had called her to gripe, and threaten... Turned out that Didion lied because it was her job to satisfy her company's customer Microsoft.

Who cares...Anonymous -- 04/04/07

All you redhat evangelists need to go brew some coffee and take a big whiff. I for one am actually glad they went away from redhat. The reason they offer enterprise support is BECAUSE YOU WILL NEED IT! RPM sucks, and yum sucks because it uses RPM. look to debian if you want to know how to do it right.

deb v. rpmAnonymous -- 04/04/07 (in reply to #320077344)

Before posting nonsense, it is actually good to know the difference between the two: http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/. Debian package format does not offer features that rpm does, such as file dependencies.

Gang warfareJohn -- 04/04/07 (in reply to #320077344)

Cool the Linux gangs are out and stamping their turf, my urine is better than your urine strategy will only drop the whole thing down a level on the credability scale.

You guys are just opening the door to Microsoft at every avenue if you cannot agree amongst yourselves

Opening doorsAnonymous -- 12/04/07 (in reply to #320077368)

Now, given that we're opening doors for MS all the time, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that Linux market would be declining? And yet, Linux market is constantly growing...

I think you have a math problem here :-)

What exactly sucks about RPM?Craigos -- 17/04/07 (in reply to #320077344)

All you state is that it sucks :S I'm curious as to why you think RPM's suck over say DEB packages and other installer-based packages. If that's the only reason you moved from Red Hat, it sounds somewhat pathetic. I'm not a red hat user myself (I use Debian and Debian-Based Distributions as that's what I have been using for years), but yeah - I'm not saying it's bad to hate Red Hate ;), but saying just 'sucks' is a bit pathetic don't you think?

It's called Enterprise Linux for a ReasonAnonymous -- 04/04/07

Sometimes Linux zealots make me so angry!!!!!!

The reason in case everyone has forgotten that RedHat became the premier enterprise linux vendor is because they actually offer support for their product, as well as things previously lacking in linux distributions, such as defined life cycles, and proven standard packages. They also did all of this with major ISV and Hardware vendor support and cooperation, to package an enterprise Linux product. Novell has done the same thing. Now oracle, I really don't see the issue here, apart from people touting their alliances with ridiculous arguments.

IT managers don't really care if deb is better than YUM / RPM or what kernel tweaks you've applied to get the last inkling of performance from a box. They want support, lower TCO and reliability. Supporting non standard packages, and custom community / dev editions of Linux does not equal lower TCO.

This is the reason RHEL is normally a couple of versions behind in packages, as it's aiming for reliability, not nerd chic or bragging rights.

That said, if oracle can do something to get Red Hat out of their current attitude problem (anyone who's dealt with them over the last 6 months will know what I'm talking about) and spark some innovation in the field, good luck to them. Novell is already listening to sysadmins and producing a good product, so why not oracle?

Sooner or later these zealots will get a reality check and realise there are other factors that influence these decisions apart from their pet distribution, and that no OS, no matter the developers claims can do everything for everyone, that's why we have a choice.

Well what do the discussion threads tell us?Craig Iedema -- 04/04/07

Well what a dissapointing discussion this is, we have:-

-People attacking Linux.
-People attacking GPL.
-People attacking various distos.
and people attacking Oracle support which is the only thing sort of on the topic of the story.

This company, judging by the story obviously are finding that:-
1) Oracle support is working for them.
2) They like it because it is a one stop shop.
3) They have a couple of Dell RHEL boxes which came with support from RedHat.
4) They been getting abusive phone calls and e-mails calling them 'idiots' because of this.

Few of the posts actually address any of this.

To my mind if the Oracle support is working for them and the reasons they want seem quite sound what is wrong with that. This company made a decision that they believe will benefit them and the abuse they are getting for it seems to be largely without merit.

I really don't understand why they should be subject to it at all - it really does smack of zealous piety by people who believe that Oracle shouldn't get a foothold in this market.

That feeling may be fine but counter it by convincing them that the other choices are better, not abusing them for the ones they have made.

As the firm has said in the all the time they had RHEL support RedHat never contacted them - not really good account management if you ask me.

Excuse me? Oracle has excellent supportAnonymous -- 07/04/07

I am still on the fence about Oracle's Linux offering, but to say that Oracle has poor database support is just plain wrong. They provide excellent support for thier 'flagship' product, and removing the opportunity for finger-pointing between vendors when troubleshooting an issue is a very good reason for considering the Oracle Linux support offering.
Providing support for someone else's product is not new - IBM and HP are two other major players who offer tech support for Linux flavors. However, I too wonder what will happen if Oracle is successful in pulling a significant amount of revenue away from RH - if RH flounders, where will Oracle get another copy of Linux to clone? Will they create yet another distro of their own?