Linux Gets Boost From Dell, Oracle

Forbes.com ^ | 06.05.02, 3:00 PM ET | Lisa DiCarlo

[Redcloak]

Operating Systems
Linux Gets Boost From Dell, Oracle
Lisa DiCarlo, 06.05.02, 3:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - In yet another strong show of support for the Linux operating system, market leaders Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ), Dell Computer (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) and Red Hat Software (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people ) today combined strengths to make the software more reliable, higher performance and easier to buy.

For the first time, Dell will resell licenses for Oracle's 9i database and application server software for Red Hat Linux. That lets customers avoid having to buy from two companies, and is a strong show of support of Linux from Dell, which made its fortune as a purveyor of Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Windows systems.

The trio is also developing more reliable Linux products for Dell's storage systems, which are actually made by EMC (nyse: EMC - news - people ). The big improvement here is that Oracle and Red Hat are developing so-called "clustering" technology for Dell servers. Typically the domain of traditional Unix, clustering is a complex way to get higher performance from a smaller number of server computers.

Oracle and Dell are both seeing growth in their Linux businesses. A Dell spokeswoman says the company expects to ship 12% "or better" of its servers with factory-installed Linux this year, up from 8% to 10% last year. International Data Group expects market revenue for Linux-based relational databases, which is what Oracle sells, to surpass Unix-based relational databases by 2006, to $6 billion.

Oracle doesn't break out product sales by platform but the company says the demand for Linux is high. A spokesperson cites its online developer network, which had 370,000 downloads of Linux-related software in the last year.

The deal is also an important win for Red Hat, which appears to be under fire from the rest of the Linux distributors. Last week, several Linux companies said they would collaborate on "standard" Linux software and distribution. Red Hat, the biggest Linux distributor, was not part of the alliance. Today's news boosted Red Hat shares nominally to $4.89 in early afternoon trading.

Linux is gaining steam everywhere but especially on Wall Street, where some information technology executives say they are demanding that their technology providers have a comprehensive Linux strategy. Microsoft is the only major technology company without one. Can it hold out forever?

[The KG9 Kid]

Patched.

Problem solved, right?

[dheretic]

Actually if you are serious about embedded systems you use QNX

[The KG9 Kid]

Yeah, or that too. It's making it's way around.

WinCE is a pretty good embedded system. Some companies just build their own embedded OS from scratch, however.

[dheretic]

In a good month, Microsoft is lucky if that is how few patches they release just for IE 6. Microsoft products get cracked more often than their competitors' because they're easier to crack, not due to popularity. Apache doesn't have the problem that IIS has and it is the dominant web server. So remember kids, the most common message that people see when visiting sites running IIS is "j00r b0X3n r B3l0nG 2 uS."

[Bush2000]

Microsoft products get cracked more often than their competitors' because they're easier to crack, not due to popularity.

Actually, you're full of crap. Your sacred cows get hacked just as frequently (if not more so) as Windows:
Windows More Secure Than Linux? Yep!

[dheretic]

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You expect Wininfo.com to be objective? Come on pal. That's like trying to get the average slashdotter to not verbally impale MS on a long rusty nail. If the hole isn't in the kernel or a kernel module, it isn't a "linux security hole." Linux is just a kernel, everything is maintained by separate teams. Blaming the kernel team for a hole in OpenSSH would be like blaming Microsoft for a hole in AOL's software. Linux distributions are just that, distributions. They're complete packages of the kernel plus programs compiled for the linux kernel as opposed to the FreeBSD kernel. They aren't pure operating systems in the sense you think of Windows or MacOS. Nice attempt at trolling, too bad it didn't work.

[dheretic]

Oh and you might want to take a look at their source

some juicy tidbits for you: holes for 2001: slackware: 10, debian: 28, NT4/2k: 42.

Redhat installs a lot of stuff by default for convenience. The RedHat approach is to setup a fully operational box of some kind and then make the user set the configuration properly. If you cannot take responsibility for locking down a system to your specifications, WTF are you doing be a sysadmin of any kind in the first place?!

Debian and Slackware are very conservative distributions. Debian's debug and analysis cycle is longer than some of Microsoft's entire development cycles. Hence it beats NT4/2k.

So, you were saying? :)

[Bush2000]

You expect Wininfo.com to be objective?

I could care less whether they're objective or not. The data that they cite proves their case.

[Bush2000]

Debian and Slackware are very conservative distributions. Debian's debug and analysis cycle is longer than some of Microsoft's entire development cycles. Hence it beats NT4/2k

Linux isn't a single distribution, dude. You know that.

Security vulnerabilities for Linux are additive across all distributions since all distributions are deployed.

[dheretic]

Security vulnerabilities for Linux are additive across all distributions since all distributions are deployed.

Before you make such an ignorant comment again, why don't you go look at the package lists for the mainstream distros. I can guarantee you that they aren't identical. Each distributor chooses which versions of which programs and libraries to include. If glibc 2.2.x has a security hole but 2.2.y doesn't, only distros including 2.2.x will have that hole to deal with. Have you ever used linux before? I doubt it since you didn't know that every linux distributor chooses which versions of software to package per release.

You cannot take every security hole from every distro and add them together and call that a big list of holes for linux. As I said before, if it isn't a kernel-level hole it's not a linux security hole. It is a hole in that particular program or library which is maintained by an entirely different group of people.

[dheretic]

I take it you didn't even look at the source they provided, it disproved their inane attempt at propaganda.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Hence it beats NT4/2k.

Out of curiosity, how much experience do you have with any Win2000 OS? Have you worked as a Systems Engineer with it? Just asking. You seem certain at it's ability, so I was wondering.

[dheretic]

I personally don't have much experience with it as a server OS. I have set up an apache box here and there with Linux, but nothing major. I will be the first to admit that I rely heavily on statistics, bug reports and the experience of friends who have been involved in professionally maintaining Win2k systems. I have run IIS for use as a test platform for projects of mine but I am not certified to use it professionally. My defense of Linux being less bug ridden comes from a technicality, linux is a kernel, it is not a full operating system which Windows is. I wouldn't be surprised if the Windows kernel wouldn't work without the other components that make up Windows. Linux has about half a dozen major text-based shells and there are two GUI systems, X-Window and the Berlin Project which is still in early development. You can slap on any new components you can code on top of the Linux kernel. You have to build your own OS on top of it. There are attempts to reimplement BeOS based on the Linux kernel and IIRC there is an attempt to create a NextSTEP clone based on it as well.

I'm not a professional sysadmin by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a code monkey in training.

[Bush2000]

I can guarantee you that they aren't identical.

I didn't say they were identical. When people refer to "Linux" bugs, they are referring to any bug that occurs in any Linux distribution. Linux proponents have this funny tendency to say that anything which isn't in the kernel isn't a Linux bug; however, in their hypocritical way, they then turn around and say that bugs in IIS are bugs in Windows. Can't you see how ludicrous that dichotomy is?

[dheretic]

I didn't say they were identical. When people refer to "Linux" bugs, they are referring to any bug that occurs in any Linux distribution. Linux proponents have this funny tendency to say that anything which isn't in the kernel isn't a Linux bug; however, in their hypocritical way, they then turn around and say that bugs in IIS are bugs in Windows. Can't you see how ludicrous that dichotomy is?

1. bugs are identified on a per distro basis. There are at least 100 known distros out there
2. Linux is just a kernel. Repeat after me, Linux is just a kernel. If you don't believe me go take a look at the various projects other than OpenBeOS attempting to use the Linux kernel as the basis for a new BeOS.
3. If a bug is found in say... apache or OpenSSH. It's the fault of that development team, not the linux kernel team. Most programs that come with a linux distribution are multiplatform programs. They are not specifically linux only programs. BASH, XFree86, KDE, GNOME, Apache, GCC, etc all run on the BSDs, Solaris and MacOS X in one form or another. There are virtually no Linux-only programs.
4. IIS is tied very closely to Windows. A lot of other Windows services such as the directory services depend on it. It would not be a far stretch to say that it is as much a part of Windows as Internet Explorer. IE is the foundation for Explorer, the graphical user interface that Windows users use. Microsoft has claimed that the Windows version of IE is not a part of the OS, but without it I can assure you Explorer in new versions of Windows would not work.
5. There is nothing ridiculous about going after a software vendor for bugs. Sun's Solaris OS has various servers bundled and integrated into Solaris 9. If they are integrated at the level that IIS and IE are into Windows then any security hole they create is indeed a Solaris hole. Solaris and Windows are full operating systems whereas Linux is not.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"IIS is tied very closely to Windows. A lot of other Windows services such as the directory services depend on it."

Really? I guess I better load IIS on my domain servr for that ADS to continue running. LOL.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Explorer, the graphical user interface that Windows users use"

No kidding? You mean GDI.dll and all those other UI services are really Explorer? WOW! /sarcasm

[tortoise]

I just had this urge to strand that Linux penguin, the "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell!" guy, and Larry Ellison on an island and let them fight it out.

Metal Cage Death Match. Its the only way.

[Bush2000]

bugs are identified on a per distro basis. There are at least 100 known distros out there

And each bearing the name Linux: RedHat Linux, etc.

Linux is just a kernel. Repeat after me, Linux is just a kernel. If you don't believe me go take a look at the various projects other than OpenBeOS attempting to use the Linux kernel as the basis for a new BeOS.

Fine. You want to play that game. Windows is just a kernel, too. So I can reasonably say, by your definition, that bugs in IE and IIS are simply middleware bugs that have nothing to do with the OS.

If a bug is found in say... apache or OpenSSH. It's the fault of that development team, not the linux kernel team.

You are the one who set up that false dichotomy. I can't agree with you that those components aren't part of the OS unless you likewise agree that IIS and IE aren't part of Windows, either.

IIS is tied very closely to Windows. A lot of other Windows services such as the directory services depend on it.

You don't know what you're talking about. AD does not depend on IIS at all. You pulled that out of your rear end.

There is nothing ridiculous about going after a software vendor for bugs.

I didn't say there was. But, by the same token, don't try to avoid blame when we level the same criticisms against your sacred cows. You can't have it both ways (as much as you'd like to think so).

[dheretic]

User interface, not windowing system. There is a big difference between the two.