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

This is a discussion on Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux - Linux ; On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell wrote: > On May 7, 8:27 pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote: > > > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution — > > Red Hat — and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

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

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

    On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell wrote:
    > On May 7, 8:27 pm, 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

    >
    > Or maybe this is a way of saying Oracle bit-off (pun) more than it
    > chew. One way to improve relations with Red Hat is to give them
    > credit for the OS and to provide strong support for Oracle on Linux
    > including the Linux pieces for a fee.
    >
    > IMHO -- Mark D Powell --



    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?

    -Ramon



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

    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

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

    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 ;-)



    Rainer

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

    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

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

    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.

    Linux may be different in a sense, but that doesn't mean that Oracle
    should support multiple distributions (*). That would be simply
    insane.
    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?

    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.

    -Ramon

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


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

    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.

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

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

    -Ramon


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

    On May 7, 5:36*pm, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 7, 8:27 pm, 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

    >
    > > Or maybe this is a way of saying Oracle bit-off (pun) more than it
    > > chew. *One way to improve relations with Red Hat is to give them
    > > credit for the OS and to provide strong support for Oracle on Linux
    > > including the Linux pieces for a fee.

    >
    > > IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

    >
    > 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?
    >
    > -Ramon-


    Because it's a mess the way things are done now. Oracle should put
    together a distribution that works out of the box.

    Part of the problem with linux/oracle is it still requires a lot of
    configuration that can be screwed up. Most of this could be easily
    fixed with simple automatic, text-driven (so easily maintainable when
    there are new possibilities) scripts. I say, "fork Redhat. And it's
    mama, too."

    Not that I use it, I gave up on linux years ago, after being quite the
    supporter. Funny, it has evolved, but I haven't.
    Ten years ago I was predicting shrink-wrapped oracle/linux apps within
    a couple of years. I was wrong.
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....920d2ada0ef8fa
    I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
    running on toy hardware, and RAC on it is a ridiculous complication
    that has the effect of making poor hardware less reliable. Did I say
    that out loud?

    And in your other post where you said "Oracle servers are dedicated,
    high performance, expensive computers inside a server room. If you
    want to keep your cooking recipes in a database, use something else."
    What do you make of XE? I just yesterday implemented one as a remote
    production server, so I can push data out without worrying about lots
    of things like strange places accessing my dedicated etc. computer
    inside a server room. And when you work for a pharmaceutical
    manufacturer, cooking recipes are more critical than you might think.

    Please don't crosspost between cdo.server and cdo.misc.

    jg
    --
    @home.com is bogus.
    "Did you really think it would be that easy??"

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

    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.


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

    On May 8, 1:07 pm, 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.



    Just for the sake of argument...

    Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.

    They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.

    They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization
    (RedHat, HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99%
    of distros out.

    I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.

    -Ramon


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

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On May 8, 1:07 pm, 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.

    >
    > Just for the sake of argument...
    >
    > Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.
    >
    > They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.
    >
    > They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization (RedHat,
    > HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99% of distros
    > out.


    My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
    good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
    BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
    distribution manufacturer.

    > I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    > Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.


    ....or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world
    apparently.

    Linux is NOT a PC operating system.

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


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

    On May 8, 1:21 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > On May 8, 1:07 pm, 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.

    >
    > > Just for the sake of argument...

    >
    > > Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.

    >
    > > They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.

    >
    > > They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization (RedHat,
    > > HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99% of distros
    > > out.

    >
    > My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
    > good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
    > BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
    > distribution manufacturer.
    >
    > > I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    > > Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.

    >


    > ...or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world

    apparently.

    For the purposes of this thread, I don't.

    If you want to discuss desktop, you are invited to join another thread
    of yours truly:

    "Apple should Acquire Sun"

    in the Solaris NG.

    BTW: There are at least two widely used OSS packages in which yours
    truly is mentioned in the contributors and thanks sections.

    > Linux is NOT a PC operating system.


    ....and Oracle is not a PC product or company.

    -RFH


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

    On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:53:03 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On May 8, 1:21 pm, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> > On May 8, 1:07 pm, 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.

    >>
    >> > Just for the sake of argument...

    >>
    >> > Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.

    >>
    >> > They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.

    >>
    >> > They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization
    >> > (RedHat, HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99%
    >> > of distros out.

    >>
    >> My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
    >> good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
    >> BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
    >> distribution manufacturer.
    >>
    >> > I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
    >> > Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.

    >>
    > > ...or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world

    > apparently.
    >
    > For the purposes of this thread, I don't.
    >
    > If you want to discuss desktop, you are invited to join another thread
    > of yours truly:
    >
    > "Apple should Acquire Sun"
    >
    > in the Solaris NG.


    ....at what point was I talking about desktop? If anything I've been
    talking about anything but.

    > BTW: There are at least two widely used OSS packages in which yours
    > truly is mentioned in the contributors and thanks sections.
    >
    >> Linux is NOT a PC operating system.

    >
    > ...and Oracle is not a PC product or company.


    ....and Oracle choosing a distro that they will support is perfectly
    acceptable... despite the fact that even they use a kernel branched off of
    RedHat. For that to get mixed up in the "there should only be one Linux
    disto" argument, as this has, is ignorant.

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


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

    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.

  14. 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

  15. 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!"


  16. 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)


  17. 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...


  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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 **

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast