"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

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 --

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

Ramon F Herrera <ramon@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

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 ;-)



Rainer

Rainer Duffner <rainer@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

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.

-Ramon

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!"