[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Adrian Midgley wrote: > Paul Sutton wrote: > >> Having a dedicated distro that will install and set up a dedicated >> server running Oracle sounds interesting, optimise the operating system >> to suit, however I don't understnad why they have to buy an existing >> product, they could simply say use an existing distribution and modyify >> it to work integrate with oracle better. >> > > I'd assume they have only slight interest in the actual code, correctly > viewing this as a commodity, but would wish to acquire a social machine > (IE a company with distribution channel etc etc) capable of continuing > to produce distribute and support it, as well as to say it was A Good > Thing. Oracle are probably more interested in the lost sales opportunities than the whole infrastructure of supporting a distro. They discussed an Oracle appliance years ago, and had serious discussion with HP, who then shipped HP-UX optimised for Oracle anyway, and were at the cutting edge performance wise with PA-RISC technology. Oracle discussed doing an appliance, which "just ran Oracle". There isn't a huge gain in the database market for a closed appliance. Compared to database maintenance the big server OSes are easy to maintain, and features like configurable "cron" can reduce cost of ownership over an appliance. But from a sales perspective it is a big win for Oracle, as people will come to them for "everything" (hardware/os/integration work) on big database projects. Clearly Oracle see most future revenue coming from services, and whilst they don't do "the whole system", they must lose some business to IBM or Redhat, where buyers start with a "who will run the OS" approach to their purchase of services or consulting. - The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe. FAQ: www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html