SEO

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.

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".

On May 7, 5:36*pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On May 7, 8:33 pm, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow...@eds.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 8:27 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> 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??"

On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> 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

On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:46:45 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 17:27:33 -0700, 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.
>
> > Thus showing that the Oracle chief architect in question doesn't
> > understand Linux at all.
>
> He doesn't have to understand it. He has chosen not to understand it.
>
> Oracle Corporation is in the:
>
> "Corporate Server Business".
>
> The Oracle DB and most other apps do not run on "Linux". They run on an
> "Enterprise Linux".
>
> There is a huge difference.
>
> The fact that you can hack your iPhone and run some Linux derivative on
> it is inconsequential to Oracle.

Uh... Lucent/Avaya phone switches run Linux embedded on many of their
components.

Since I'm reading this in a Sun group... RedHat does not run on a Sparc
station... but other distros do.

RedHat does not run on PPC... but other distros do.

This has nothing to do with a hack of an insignificant toy.

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

On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:55:36 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I love when "experts" are idiots.
>
> And I love it when idiots are "experts". :-)
>
> (sorry, it was too easy)

Though completely meaningless.

> 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.

Proving further that the Oracle "expert" doesn't know what he's talking
about.

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

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.

On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> 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

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

> On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> 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!"

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

> On May 8, 1:21 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:12:08 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> > On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> 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!"

In comp.unix.aix chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> 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.