· Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net>:

> On May 8, 1:49 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
> wrote:
>> Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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...