joel garry wrote:
> 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?
>

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

--
Jeroen

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.

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)
>
> 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!!

bdbafh <bdbafh@gmail.com> 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

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

joel garry wrote:

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

It's not that simple, of course.

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

On May 9, 1:58 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
wrote:
> bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> 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

On 2008-05-08, Ramon F Herrera <ramon@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
>
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

On 2008-05-08, Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 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.

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