Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat - Aix

This is a discussion on Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat - Aix ; On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote: > joel garry wrote: > >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS > >running on toy hardware, > > Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat

  1. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote:
    > joel garry wrote:
    > >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    > >running on toy hardware,

    >
    > Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > and depend on it. *Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
    >
    > Idiot.


    Well, I may be an idiot, but what does it say that even more
    corporations use Windows? (Too avoid confusion: I'm biased against
    Windows and for unix. A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
    It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me. Success in the
    marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
    converse.

    We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
    386's worked. Getting from there to a professional OS? I say it is
    arguable. Any time someone can point out something major where
    Windows works better, first of all... (I have hardware detection and
    support in mind as I write this, certainly the main reason I'm no
    longer using linux, specifically redhat, I have 3 dozen versions of
    different linux in shelfware, at least.).

    Now as far as linux/Oracle, you need to address concerns like these:
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ce2fc3536fe0b4

    You see, I'm a _sophisticated_ idiot.

    I think the Oracle stand (referenced by the OP) of a single linux is
    just plain wrong, even limiting to the db sphere there's wildly
    different needs and usages.

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    So, do people die if your software doesn't work right?
    http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...448331-sun.php

  2. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:

    > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote:
    >> joel garry wrote:
    >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >> >running on toy hardware,

    >>
    >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    >> and depend on it. *Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
    >>
    >> Idiot.

    >
    > A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).


    That explains more than anyone ever need know.

    --
    "Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"


  3. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    · Ramon F Herrera :

    > On May 8, 6:22 am, Michael Schmarck
    > wrote:
    >> Rainer Duffner wrote:
    >> > Michael Schmarck schrieb:

    >>
    >> >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    >> >> distributions are out there?

    >>
    >> > Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)

    >>
    >> Yes, wasn't it?
    >>
    >> But even with Solaris it makes sense that Oracle only supports Solaris.
    >> After all, only Solaris 10 (or 11, when it comes out) is the /official/
    >> Solaris.
    >>
    >> That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
    >> official Linux there is.
    >>
    >> Michael

    >
    >
    >> That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
    >> official Linux there is.

    >
    > You are obviously a Linux desktop user and have no idea about
    > administering
    > corporate servers.


    Not correct.

    > Oracle never said that RedHat is the only "official Linux". Oracle
    > only runs on "Enterprise Linux" -a category very different from
    > "Linux".


    All right. So? There are also other Enterprise Linux versions out
    there - eg. SLES. And as far as stability is concerned, even Debian
    could be well suited. Or Ubuntu LTS, which is guaranteed to be
    supported (and thus stable) for 3 years.

    >
    > What Oracle wants to say is:
    >
    > (1) Oracle is in the server business
    > (2) Oracle db only runs on "Enterprise Linux"
    > (3) Our official enterprise Linux is RedHat
    >
    > The mistake many of you (I have really clarified this more often
    > that I can count)


    I have never heard of you.

    > are making is trying to be at level (3) when
    > you don't even reach level (1).


    Whatever you mean.

    Michael Schmarck
    --
    A snake lurks in the grass.
    -- Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil)


  4. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    · Ramon F Herrera :

    > On May 8, 1:49 am, Michael Schmarck
    > wrote:
    >> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>
    >> > Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
    >> > OS.

    >>
    >> > - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
    >> > - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
    >> > - One Solaris
    >> > - One AIX
    >> > - One HP-UX
    >> > - One Windows

    >>
    >> > and, last but not least:

    >>
    >> > - One Linux distribution

    >>
    >> > Why should Linux be different?

    >>
    >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    >> distributions are out there?
    >>
    >> Michael

    >
    > There are many Windows versions/distributions, you know that.


    Sure. But it's, more or less, a stable environment ("stable" in the
    sense that it doesn't change much - obviously not in the sense, that
    it runs well).

    > Linux may be different in a sense, but that doesn't mean that Oracle
    > should support multiple distributions (*).


    Wrong. Oracle should do exactly that.

    > That would be simply
    > insane.


    No. It would make a lot of sense.

    > I just hacked a new distro, it is called "Ramonux", it contains lots
    > of spiffy kernel innovations. Should I call Oracle to demand that they
    > support it?


    If it's as widely used as, let's say, Ubuntu or Debian: Yes, why not?

    > Anyone who can't/won't spring several hundred dollars for the official
    > supported distribution by Oracle (RedHat Enterprise Edition) should
    > be banished from using Oracle.


    Why just RHEL? Why not (also) SLES? What's wrong about Debian or
    Ubuntu LTS?

    It's not about being able to shell out a few hundred bucks. It's
    rather, that Oracle should not try to force what Linux version is
    okay to use, if there's no good reason (and there isn't).

    > (*) and by "multiple" I mean the strict: "more than one".


    Understood.

    Michael Schmarck
    --
    I feel sorry for your brain... all alone in that great big head...


  5. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 12:45*pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > In comp.unix.aix chrisv wrote:
    >
    > > joel garry wrote:

    >
    > >>I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    > >>running on toy hardware,

    >
    > > Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > > and depend on it. *Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >
    > google does run toy hardware. I've seen more than enough of it at
    > datacenters.


    And they screw things up, too. I've personally seen: usenet posts
    take 18 hours to get posted, and interrupted transactions (I'm talking
    about dollars, not usenet here) get committed rather than rolling
    back. And I've heard about a lot more, but I don't want to send this
    thread off on that tangent (you can, ahem, google plenty of stuff).

    I think google is a real bad example of proving that cheapo hardware
    is in general a good thing. They have craploads of capital to throw
    at it, which doesn't imply efficiency at all. Whether it actually
    will work for google over the long run remains to be seen, but there
    is nothing to show that it is appropriate for others. Especially the
    part about having so much redundant hardware they have to build a
    special building with the cooling requirements of an old-style nuclear
    plant. And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    results.

    In the datacenters I've seen, which range from medium sized companies
    to large gummint, the Intel commodity crap comes and goes, Windows is
    forever being rebooted, and the real unices only go down for some dumb-
    ass yanking the plug when they're not supposed to (or the rare rman
    job fragmenting I/O buffers and... oops, didn't mean to say that one
    out loud, either).

    And I've seen a few places with linux/Oracle/RAC that just seem to
    have expectations way out in left field. Are they stupid or have they
    been oversold?

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    http://www.csoonline.com/article/348...net_Looks_Like

  6. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 4:54 pm, Michael Schmarck wrote:
    > Ramon F Herrera :
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 8, 1:49 am, Michael Schmarck
    > > wrote:
    > >> Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > >> > Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
    > >> > OS.

    >
    > >> > - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
    > >> > - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
    > >> > - One Solaris
    > >> > - One AIX
    > >> > - One HP-UX
    > >> > - One Windows

    >
    > >> > and, last but not least:

    >
    > >> > - One Linux distribution

    >
    > >> > Why should Linux be different?

    >
    > >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
    > >> distributions are out there?

    >
    > >> Michael

    >
    > > There are many Windows versions/distributions, you know that.

    >
    > Sure. But it's, more or less, a stable environment ("stable" in the
    > sense that it doesn't change much - obviously not in the sense, that
    > it runs well).
    >
    > > Linux may be different in a sense, but that doesn't mean that Oracle
    > > should support multiple distributions (*).

    >
    > Wrong. Oracle should do exactly that.
    >
    > > That would be simply
    > > insane.

    >
    > No. It would make a lot of sense.
    >
    > > I just hacked a new distro, it is called "Ramonux", it contains lots
    > > of spiffy kernel innovations. Should I call Oracle to demand that they
    > > support it?

    >
    > If it's as widely used as, let's say, Ubuntu or Debian: Yes, why not?
    >
    > > Anyone who can't/won't spring several hundred dollars for the official
    > > supported distribution by Oracle (RedHat Enterprise Edition) should
    > > be banished from using Oracle.

    >
    > Why just RHEL? Why not (also) SLES? What's wrong about Debian or
    > Ubuntu LTS?
    >
    > It's not about being able to shell out a few hundred bucks. It's
    > rather, that Oracle should not try to force what Linux version is
    > okay to use, if there's no good reason (and there isn't).
    >
    > > (*) and by "multiple" I mean the strict: "more than one".

    >
    > Understood.
    >
    > Michael Schmarck
    > --
    > I feel sorry for your brain... all alone in that great big head...


    Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    and are not supported.
    Or would you rather just spew forth an uninformed opinion?

    -bdbafh

  7. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry

    wrote
    on Thu, 8 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
    <93714048-dfc9-4b1d-b2d3-c82974a31f58@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
    > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote:
    >> joel garry wrote:
    >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >> >running on toy hardware,

    >>
    >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    >> and depend on it. *Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
    >>
    >> Idiot.

    >
    > Well, I may be an idiot, but what does it say that even more
    > corporations use Windows? (Too avoid confusion: I'm biased against
    > Windows and for unix. A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
    > It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.


    Define "wrong". Both solutions work, with a cost.
    That cost has multiple units:

    [1] initial licensing/monetary outlay for OS and apps relevant to
    the initial problem
    [2] reliability/downtime
    [3] IT support staff effort (man-days per machine per year, perhaps)
    [4] IT training costs (including procedure development)
    [5] staff training costs
    [6] additional hardware and software not related to [1] in order
    to keep the entire system running/responsive/virus-free/sane
    [7] palatability to upper management; for example, they might not
    even look at [non-]Microsoft or [non-]Oracle solutions, terminating
    any proposals outside of their worldview with not quite extreme
    prejudice.

    > Success in the
    > marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
    > converse.
    >
    > We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
    > 386's worked. Getting from there to a professional OS? I say it is
    > arguable. Any time someone can point out something major where
    > Windows works better, first of all...


    [1] Generating profit for Microsoft.
    [2] Threads, maybe.
    [3] Might be easier to sell to large corporations; Dell
    and Microsoft in particular are advertising Microsoft
    System Center.

    > (I have hardware detection and
    > support in mind as I write this, certainly the main reason I'm no
    > longer using linux, specifically redhat, I have 3 dozen versions of
    > different linux in shelfware, at least.).
    >
    > Now as far as linux/Oracle, you need to address concerns like these:
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ce2fc3536fe0b4
    >
    > You see, I'm a _sophisticated_ idiot.
    >
    > I think the Oracle stand (referenced by the OP) of a single linux is
    > just plain wrong, even limiting to the db sphere there's wildly
    > different needs and usages.
    >
    > jg
    > --
    > @home.com is bogus.
    > So, do people die if your software doesn't work right?
    > http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...448331-sun.php



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  8. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 2:26*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry
    >
    > *wrote
    > on Thu, 8 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
    > <93714048-dfc9-4b1d-b2d3-c82974a31...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
    >
    > > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote:
    > >> joel garry wrote:
    > >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    > >> >running on toy hardware,

    >
    > >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > >> and depend on it. *Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >
    > >> Idiot.

    >
    > > Well, I may be an idiot, but what does it say that even more
    > > corporations use Windows? (Too avoid confusion: I'm biased against
    > > Windows and for unix. *A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
    > > It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.

    >
    > Define "wrong". *Both solutions work, with a cost.
    > That cost has multiple units:
    >
    > [1] initial licensing/monetary outlay for OS and apps relevant to
    > * * the initial problem
    > [2] reliability/downtime
    > [3] IT support staff effort (man-days per machine per year, perhaps)
    > [4] IT training costs (including procedure development)
    > [5] staff training costs
    > [6] additional hardware and software not related to [1] in order
    > * * to keep the entire system running/responsive/virus-free/sane
    > [7] palatability to upper management; for example, they might not
    > * * even look at [non-]Microsoft or [non-]Oracle solutions, terminating
    > * * any proposals outside of their worldview with not quite extreme
    > * * prejudice.


    Very well said. I'm using "wrong" here in the sense that management
    decisions vary from some objective truth. If many organizations have
    a high variance, they may quite well all be wrong. It is also
    possible for technically wrong decisions (ie, choosing an inferior
    operating system and/or database with a semi-bogus app, that can still
    be made to work in the business) to be managerially correct, I'm sure
    we've all seen versions of that, whether or not we want to admit it.

    >
    > > Success in the
    > > marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
    > > converse.

    >
    > > We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
    > > 386's worked. *Getting from there to a professional OS? *I say it is
    > > arguable. *Any time someone can point out something major where
    > > Windows works better, first of all...

    >
    > [1] Generating profit for Microsoft.
    > [2] Threads, maybe.
    > [3] Might be easier to sell to large corporations; Dell
    > and Microsoft in particular are advertising Microsoft
    > System Center.
    >


    And Oracle pushing software as a service. Feh.

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    "... keynote gloriously isolated from reality..."
    http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...e_bea_layoffs/

  9. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 1:40*pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
    > > On May 8, 10:07*am, chrisv wrote:
    > >> joel garry wrote:
    > >> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    > >> >running on toy hardware,

    >
    > >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    > >> and depend on it. *Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >
    > >> Idiot.

    >
    > > A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).

    >
    > That explains more than anyone ever need know.
    >


    :-)

    But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
    disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
    hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
    fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
    advocacy issues?

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=413

  10. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    joel garry wrote:
    > On May 8, 1:40 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
    >>> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv wrote:
    >>>> joel garry wrote:
    >>>>> I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >>>>> running on toy hardware,

    >>
    >>>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations
    >>>> use and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >>
    >>>> Idiot.

    >>
    >>> A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).

    >>
    >> That explains more than anyone ever need know.
    >>

    >
    > :-)
    >
    > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
    > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
    > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
    > fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
    > advocacy issues?
    >


    No one is forcing you to use Intel hardware to run Linux ...

    --
    Jeroen



  11. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I love when "experts" are idiots.

    >
    >
    > And I love it when idiots are "experts". :-)
    >
    > (sorry, it was too easy)
    >
    > Now seriously: A computer running Oracle is by definition a dedicated
    > server. It needs a special kernel, among other things. You shouldn't
    > run anything else on it.
    >
    > -Ramon
    >


    This may be true for Linux based systems but is not, AFAIK, the case for
    O/S's like OpenVMS, or Solaris. Yes, you do have set some memory
    allocation parameters to ensure that Oracle gets enough memory to run
    efficiently but that's not quite the same as a special kernel. For best
    performance, it helps to put Oracle on one machine and your
    application(s) on another but you certainly can run your application on
    the same machine; just be sure the machine has at least two CPU's and
    LOTS of RAM! It's probably a lot cheaper to run your applications on a
    second machine rather than beefing up one to do it all; Oracle charges
    for licenses based on the number of CPU's and they charge all the
    traffic will bear!!

  12. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    joel garry (joel-garry@home.com) wrote:

    : I think google (...snip...)
    : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    : results.

    Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?

    That would be a _bad_ thing.

    Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
    page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. If a result page
    doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible
    algorithm.


  13. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    bdbafh wrote:

    > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    > and are not supported.


    Care to provide a direct link?

    > Or would you rather just spew forth an uninformed opinion?


    I was responding to Ramon, who said that it would be good for Oracle
    to support only one Linux distribution.

    Michael

  14. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution:Red Hat

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution
    > Red Hat and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    > base.


    Which is a perfectly sensible viewpoint from
    a *purely Oracle* perspective, but bloody nonsense
    from the viewpoint of various other vendors using
    Linux in PVR's, Mobile phones, PDAs, routers,
    sound studio software, all of which have different
    requirments.

    BugBear

  15. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    joel garry wrote:

    >It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.


    It's not that simple, of course.


  16. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 8, 7:38 pm, yf...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Malcolm Dew-Jones)
    wrote:
    > joel garry (joel-ga...@home.com) wrote:
    >
    > : I think google (...snip...)
    > : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
    > : results.
    >
    > Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
    >
    > That would be a _bad_ thing.
    >
    > Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
    > page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. If a result page
    > doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible
    > algorithm.



    I am all for giving exact and consistent results every time...

    If we lived in a constant, immovable, static world that is!

    Just freeze the clock, and the Google results will be completely
    consistent...

    Last time I saw a search engine with consistent results was Altavista.
    It had a piece of information gathering software (called "scooter")
    which took a month to traverse the www. Google results are almost real-
    time.

    -RFH


  17. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 1:58 am, Michael Schmarck
    wrote:
    > bdbafh wrote:
    > > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    > > and are not supported.

    >
    > Care to provide a direct link?
    >


    He cannot. That information is classified. :-)

    Now seriously: you have to be an Oracle Metalink subscriber to see
    the certification matrix.

    Last time I checked Oracle supports 3 distribuitions, all of them in
    the "enterprise" category.

    - RHEL
    - Enterprise SuSE
    - Asia Linux

    Oracle works directly with the folks responsible for the above
    distributions.
    The original one was RedHat. They both (Oracle + RH) opened a
    development lab
    to make sure that the software ran properly on Linux. Oracle gave
    every byte
    on code -as required- back to the community.

    The point is that when tey discover a bug or problem, Oracle can pick
    up a phone,
    make 3 phone calls and yell: "fix this now!".

    It turns out that they would like to make a single phone call, with
    the
    cost savings and wall street pressures and all.

    Ergo, the RH special status.

    -Ramon



  18. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

    On May 9, 1:58 am, Michael Schmarck
    wrote:
    > bdbafh wrote:
    > > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
    > > and are not supported.

    >
    > Care to provide a direct link?
    >


    He cannot. That information is classified. :-)

    Now seriously: you have to be an Oracle Metalink subscriber to see the
    certification matrix.

    Last time I checked, Oracle supports 3 distribuitions, all of them in
    the "Enterprise" category.

    - RHEL
    - Enterprise SuSE
    - Asia Linux

    Oracle works directly with the folks responsible for the above
    distributions. The original one was RedHat. They both (Oracle + RH)
    opened a development lab to make sure that the software ran properly
    on Linux. Oracle gave every byte of code -as required- back to the
    community.

    The point is that when they discover a bug or problem, Oracle can pick
    up a phone, make *three* phone calls and yell: "Fix this now!".

    It turns out that they would like to make a *single* phone call, with
    the cost savings, wall street pressures and all.

    Ergo, the RH special status.

    -Ramon


  19. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On 2008-05-08, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution ?
    > Red Hat ? and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
    > base.
    >
    > In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle?s chief
    > corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
    > a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
    > Linux distribution ? his rival?s code base."
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393
    >
    > -RFH
    >

    They can have my Debian when they pry it from my cold dead hands.



    --
    Christopher Mattern

    NOTICE
    Thank you for noticing this new notice
    Your noticing it has been noted
    And will be reported to the authorities

  20. Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

    On 2008-05-08, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > In comp.unix.aix chrisv wrote:
    >> joel garry wrote:
    >>
    >>>I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    >>>running on toy hardware,

    >>
    >> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
    >> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".

    >
    > google does run toy hardware. I've seen more than enough of it at
    > datacenters.


    In that case, all I can say is that most corporations desperately
    need to make trip to the toy store.


    --
    Christopher Mattern

    NOTICE
    Thank you for noticing this new notice
    Your noticing it has been noted
    And will be reported to the authorities

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast