Introducing Incus

Characterizing Oracle as a parasite is inaccurate, see also https://lwn.net/Articles/935627/ . They do a lot of upstream kernel maintenance (searching for "oracle" in MAINTAINERS will get you some of it, but also note there are Oracle folks with kernel.org addresses, e.g., Darrick Wong, who is mentioned in the article) and they regularly show up in the list of top contributors, there is Java of course (which Red Hat makes a lot of money off of), they're active in Xorg upstream, etc. I have no sympathy for Oracle as a company (and this is somewhat personal, they acquired a startup I interned at and promptly dropped support for everything except Oracle Linux), but this characterization is unfair to the sizable number of upstream developers who work at Oracle.

If you want to talk about parasitism and the business motivation for Red Hat's decision, blame the bug-for-bug compatible rebuilds, which allow large companies to run a small percent of their machines with actual Red Hat, the rest of their machines with a binary-equivalent rebuild, and report issues through Red Hat's support contract regardless of which machine it's on. This completely breaks Red Hat's business model, which is that they'll provide you expert engineering and support services in proportion to how much you use their product. If there are tricky locking bugs with a one-in-a-thousand chance of hitting them, and you want ten of them fixed, it makes economic sense for Red Hat to do it if you pay them for ten thousand support contracts; it doesn't make economic sense if you pay them for five and you claim you ran into all of those bugs on five machines.

Oracle Enterprise Linux (which doesn't even default to the Red Hat kernel) does not break the business model: it just competes with Red Hat because they provide their own engineering and support services which they also bill per-machine - and SUSE's Liberty product does exactly the same thing!

Of course, the rebuilds are entirely within their rights to be bug-for-bug compatible rebuilds and the customers who use them this way are mostly within their rights to do so (they're certainly within their rights to deploy the rebuilds; whether they can use Red Hat's support contract to have them fix issues on a large fleet that were reproduced on a small fleet is debatable), because it's open source and the entire idea of open source is that there's no such thing as a parasite.

One should remember that Oracle main selling point in the database business at one point was "at least we are not IBM".

The way I see it, that's an instance of "two types of software, the type everyone complains about and the type nobody uses".

People are angry at RedHat/IBM because the course of action it's taken seems out of character and self-destructive in the long run. I don't think anybody here is sincerely rooting for it to fail, not after picking a fight with SCO & MS on our behalf.

They aren't talking about Oracle because the consensus on it has been persona non grata for a *long* time. Oracle does not make any software people want to use; it sits on the wrong side of a dozen prominent forks and makes a legal nuisance of itself. The only interesting thing out of that company in recent memory is a gratis VPS offering, and even then "interesting" is a pejorative - it's just another spam/abuse haven.

(Having wrote all that I'm not sure how Canonical fits into the binary. Their desktop offering is a net good but their enterprise side and its obsession with control reminds me of a robodialler insurance scam. This LXD situation in particular stands out as a huge red flag.)

yeah that went from wild to wildest pretty quickly ^^

I can also speak for my cat: she’s an open source activist; she attacks my Mac but leaves my Linux box alone.