SEO

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.

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

On May 8, 10:07*am, 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.

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

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

> On May 8, 10:07*am, 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.
>
> 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!"

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

> On May 8, 6:22 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
> wrote:
>> Rainer Duffner <rai...@ultra-secure.de> 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)

· 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...

On May 8, 12:45*pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> In comp.unix.aix 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".
>
> 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

On May 8, 4:54 pm, Michael Schmarck <michael.schma...@here.la> wrote:
> · Ramon F Herrera <ra...@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...

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

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry
<joel-garry@home.com>
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 <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.
>
> 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 **

On May 8, 2:26*pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry
> <joel-ga...@home.com>
> *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 <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.
>
> > 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/

On May 8, 1:40*pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
> > On May 8, 10:07*am, 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.
>
> > 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