Uncompatible Linux

october 26, 2006 : steve : 21 comment(s)

Ok, I downloaded Oracle's Unbreakable Linux to give it a spin in VMware. Initial thoughts: It's broken, I call bullshit, Larry Ellison!

I downloaded the four CDs from Oracle, they were in zip format. The CD ISOs are about the same size as CentOS CDs. (And for those of you curious, Oracle does not make Breakable Linux available on a single DVD like CentOS.) I unzipped all four files and fired up VMware.

In VMware, I created a VM for Breakable Linux:


The installation was just like CentOS installation. It went by without incident. After I rebooted, I went through the same initial boot configuration. And then I was dropped onto a Gnome desktop, where things got bad:

Out of the box, those two are already show stoppers. So much for "unbreakable". I question the reliability of Oracle's QA department over this. Out-of-box experience should not be this horrendous. But, it gets even worse. Ellison and his FUD factory promised "compatibility with Red Hat Linux". Not even true. I ran an up2date in Breakable Linux and the little up2date icon turned green -- telling me that everything is up-to-date. So:

That shows that first: Oracle has already broken from binary compatibility with RHEL because the kernel version is completely off (and who the hell got decimal happy?). Second, it shows that Oracle is already behind in putting out bugfixes when you look at the Firefox version. Lastly, Thunderbird being missing from the custom installer really proves that Oracle is not putting together a true RHEL rebuild.

At least with CentOS: What is in RHEL is in CentOS (other than logos and trademarked materials). The CentOS team strives to be as binary compatible with RHEL as possible (even with bugs!) And, the slowest bug fix release from CentOS is measured in hours. Not the same with Breakable Linux...

So, to recap:


You get what you pay for with Unbreakable Linux.

Update: One thing that I was thinking about but forgot to write was a true test of binary compatibility. CentOS is binary compatible with RHEL, the best way to illustrate this is to try to setup WPA-PSK with CentOS and RHEL. The procedures are the same because the kernel revision is the same. The same cannot be said about Oracle's Enterprise Linux. Any el4 packages out there for RHEL4 which are built against the RHEL4 kernel will not work with Oracle's Enterprise Linux. Oracle Enterprise Linux is a fork.

Another Update: Here is my follow-up posting with advice for Larry Ellison. Yea, like he will listen...But, hey it is worth a try.

Comments

Of course it's "unbreakable". It doesn't do anything.

It's easy to make unbreakable, effectively useless items.

(Reminds me of the most secure computer in the world. The one that was sunk into a block of reinforced concrete and wrapped with TEMPEST mesh. It was really secure, but you know, kinda hard to use with all that concrete and steel encasing it.)

jr

October 26, 2006 @ 07:26 PM

The product is called 'Enterprise Linux' not 'Unbreakable Linux'.

http://edelivery.oracle.com/EPD/LinuxFAQ/get_form?ARU_LANG=US

Chris

October 26, 2006 @ 08:10 PM

http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/index.html

Ah, 'scuse me. Unbreakable Linux is only the moniker for the support program wrapped around a broken Enterprise Linux then.

Semantics don't get around the fact that Oracle's rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is broke out of the gate.

mookie

October 26, 2006 @ 09:14 PM

Oracle does not mean that they broke binary compatibility. The change in the kernel version is very small. You MUST test with many RHEL binary applications to see if they run on Oracle before you say that it's binary incompatible.

Eugenia

October 27, 2006 @ 04:09 PM

Here's how I would test binary compatible: Add any repo (say atRPMs) to your Oracle installation and install anything that can be installed to el4. If you can, then fine. If you can't, then it's broken. At least for stuff that is based off of kernel numbering, I can't with Oracle. I can with CentOS since they remain inline with RHEL. Oracle is not staying inline with RHEL, they have essentially forked away from RHEL when they started changing version numbers. It is no longer a rebuild of RHEL and I would not consider it "the same". As for the kernel version being "very small"...

2.6.9-42.0.0.0.1.EL compared to Red Hat version 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL. Any difference is a lot of difference. What was changed? And why? How was it QA'd by Oracle? Or was it even (especially looking at the fact that Oracle's rebuild shipped broken)? For me? I wouldn't trust it for the mere fact that it was allowed to ship broken, if I were running a multi-million dollar company with a thousands of servers, why would I trust Oracle when they ship a broken product?

mookie

October 27, 2006 @ 04:46 PM

Enterprise Linux is not a desktop OS, Oracle has built it as a server OS, to be used under the Oracle software stack.

Paul Weiss

October 27, 2006 @ 09:19 PM

Paul, that would be easier to swallow if Oracle came out with a server only installation (much like how CentOS has a stripped down server version). But, the fact is that Oracle did not. Oracle came out with a distro that when you go through the installation asks *specifically* if you want a workstation, devel box, server or customized installation. That plainly says that Oracle's Enterprise Linux has a desktop OS option.

Anyways, you are not even touching the fact that Oracle could not even rebuild Red Hat Enterprise Linux correctly. If Oracle did rebuild it correctly (as it has been proven that it can be by CentOS, White Box Linux, and Scientific Linux), then the desktop portitions of the OS would work correctly. As it stands, they do not work correctly.

You also do not touch on the fact that Oracle has changed the version of the kernel, which will make it incompatible with existing RHEL installs. And you do not touch on the fact that Oracle promises "quick" bugfixes, yet the included Firefox is in fact down-revved from what is actually out there.

Oracle Enterprise Linux (if it can even be referred to as an enterprise-grade Linux with the current build) is a joke. And with this kind of initial release, I am sure there has been a lot of lost trust.

mookie

October 27, 2006 @ 09:27 PM

I dont know why these people (also RedHat) use such old kernels; that kernel hasnt inside all the big changes by 2.6.16. Morover, for a paied system !!

Slackware comes already with 2.6.18, i have running 2.6.19-rc3. And all progs new, KDE 3.5.5, Oo 2.0.4 . Because of this, one never should buy a distro, nor RH nor SuSE or whatever, because there comes always old things.

http://www.monkey.is-a-geek.net/info.php

werner

October 28, 2006 @ 01:34 AM

Steve you are very surface critical of a new distro. Substance, chanel the anger..
..

scott

October 28, 2006 @ 04:26 AM

8. Werner, the issue of Oracle aside, essentially commercial distro policy is to maintain the same version but roll in any security fixes. Why? Any professional knows that you do not roll out new features for a release that already works. You risk destabilising it and breaking i t for existing users. Any change in critical programs must wait for the next release. Ubuntu found this out to their cost when they broke the X server with a package upgrade.

If you want to live on the bleeding edge, there are lots of betas and testing branches you can use. But don't blame the distros for being careful with potentially risky changes. You have to accept that when you use an official release, the kernel and other software will be at least a few weeks, perhaps a few months old because that's how long it took to test it.

ken

October 28, 2006 @ 06:35 AM

Scott, how is being critical of not being able to use any applications in an "enterprise" distro considered "surface critical"? That's like trying to date a dead girl who was advertised to be "compatible" with a real girl.

mookie

October 28, 2006 @ 08:28 AM

this is not more than a tricky move from Oracle to buy a helthy company for peanuts.

Alberto

October 28, 2006 @ 09:17 AM

Scott, first off, "his girl" is actually rather cute, and your comment was not only uncalled for, but it had nothing to do with Oracle's Linux offering. If Steve's really 6'4", you'd best hope you never meet him after that, 'cause he's likely a lot bigger than you.

And as for Oracle's "Unbreakable" Linux, this was a stupid move on Oracle's part in the first place. Oracle doesn't do operating systems. It does databases, and it does a damn fine job. I am not only a systems engineer, I'm also a part-time hacker, and "complete binary compatibility" means that exactly that--complete. That means you, at a minimum, need to use exactly the same source code, on the same CPU instruction set. If you deviate, you risk losing *complete* binary compatibility. Oracle clearly has failed in this.

I wouldn't use any "Oracle Linux" for a couple of reasons. First, I don't want to be too dependent on a single vendor, especially when their core business is closed-source; if you want that, go with Microsoft. Second, they're not proven in the OS space. I'd go with Slackware Linux before I ever went with "Oracle Linux"; as the world's longest-lived distro, Slackware's about as proven as you can get. Alternately, I could easily see going with RHEL or an actually accurate clone like CentOS. These, too, are proven.

Sum Yung Gai

October 28, 2006 @ 01:04 PM

Just because your rpm's won't install doens't necessarily mean they're binary incompatible, just gated by an warnings from your package management system.

Binary incompatibility is a big word to throw around without understanding what it means.

Tyler

October 29, 2006 @ 03:10 AM

> Oracle has already broken from binary
> compatibility with RHEL because the kernel
> version is completely off (and who the hell got
> decimal happy?).

You misunderstand binary compatibility. The
concept is different from matching version
numbers.

Now if you found actual RHEL-bound RPMs that
fail to install on oracle's widget, that's a
more substantial criticism.

Frank

October 29, 2006 @ 06:45 AM

Tyler & Frank. I conceded the point of the definition of binary compatibility. Now, I question you guys...Would you want to upgrade to a system where you have to question if a package is compatible or is not compatible with the real thing? Sure, I could probably have rpm force the installation, but why should I? Other rebuilds of RHEL (CentOS and Scientific Linux) don't make me do that. "We think it's important not to fragment the market." They already have if rpms have to redone just for their distro.

mookie

October 29, 2006 @ 09:07 AM

I did an install in Vmware too, and got plenty of Apps listed in the applications menu. You must have done something odd.

Benji

November 3, 2006 @ 10:27 AM

Mookie, there is certainly some bullshit going on here, but I think it might be in the review...
When you installed the product, did you bother to select a configuration that included applications? I installed the "Everything" choice and I got seemingly the same stuff you would get in RHEL (I didn't do an exact comparison, but it's a whole lot more than the "nothing" that you report.)

Also, did you bother to read that you have to sign up for a subscription to receive updates (I would hazard a guess that this is why your icon turned green, 'cause you don't have a subscription.)
Perhaps a little more care in your next review would be helpfull.

Trevor

November 5, 2006 @ 09:10 AM

Trevor,
1) When I did the install, I did a custom install and selected the applications that I wanted. I did the install exactly the same as how I do my CentOS installs -- well, except for the fact that Thunderbird is missing. So, yes, I should have had applications since I did the same install as my CentOS install. But, no, there was nothing in my applications menu. Oh, and btw, those that think this was just an isolated problem from my install? It's not.
2) Let me get this straight. So, for the most important part of security, it will give me a false positive? If I don't have a subscription and try to update, it will tell me that my system is perfectly up-to-date? Do you see something wrong there?

mookie

November 5, 2006 @ 09:47 AM

I had the same empty menu problem when I took the default installation and selected Workstation.

When I install both KDE and GNOME, GNOME menus are fully populated.

Phil

November 7, 2006 @ 05:45 PM

hey mookie, just wondering, 3 weeks on from the announcement, if the compatibility (binary or not =) have been fixed or if they still exist in the Oracle version.... have you or anyone else done any tests recently?

tiger chen

November 28, 2006 @ 11:11 AM

Name:

URL:

Remove the "xyz":

Comment:

Don't type anything here unless you're an evil robot: