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 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.

Linux is NOT a PC operating system.

How the hell am I supposed to run RedHat embedded on a micro-controller?

I love when "experts" are idiots.

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

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.

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

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 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 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.