|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class)|
"Oracle Unbreakable Linux"
"Oracle Unbreakable Linux" is a support program. Oracle's true distribution name is "Oracle Enterprise Linux". I hope it will change into true name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC-7)
This article sounds like an 'opinion' piece, taking personal shots at Oracle. Thoughts? --Felipe1982 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC) The comments around centos are unfounded. every rpm comes straight from red hat as you can see on the distributed source code. The patches that were previously done by centos which also ended up in the Oracle version are actually documented in the changelogs of the rpms, so credit is provided in the normal mechanism. I would agree that this is a heavily opinionated article.
I would concur. There is more written in the controversy section than the rest of the entire article. --hseritt 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the distribution is now called "Oracle Linux" by Oracle. They recently dropped the word "Enterprise" from the name. This change should be reflected in the body of the page, and by renaming the page with a reference at the old name. Chris (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Derivative
Reading the comments it seems to me this article used to be anti-Oracle POV once. However, what I see now is the exact opposite of that - the article reads like an advertisement, so I've tagged it accordingly. The article mostly consists of positive or neutral informative (e.g. tech specs) statements, completely lacking any objective comments. I guess someone should mix in some of the mentioned "controversies" into the article too.--Arny (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not an "Advertisement" in my opinion -- the article is already "written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery". In fact, the whole article is technical specifications and version numbers. Raysonho (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- From what I've seen here on Wikipedia people tag things as "advertisements" for whenever they please, something too positive? advertisement, something too negative? an advertisement for another company, an article only mentions another product that is vaguely related with something else on the market? it must immediately be removed even if it's more related to the subject than the vaguely related articles because it's been implemented for advertising purposes and people are "getting paid by Microsoft", if you feel like anything here is written as an advertisement feel free to WP:BOLD remove it, but WP:IOR seems to apply way too much and personally I've read this article twice and nothing here seems like it was written as an advertisement and it's quite well sourced for a Linux article. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)