Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Creates Linux Division
MikeDartt writes "According to C|Net news, Oracle is devoting an entire division to creating a line of products for Linux. As the article notes, this isn't surprising, given Ellison's antipathy towards MS. Yet another announcement for LWE, eh? " Will this lead to even more enterprise credibility?
define skilled admins.
hacks with certificates hanging out their back pockets? Oracle Certified? whatever.
there are some amazing DBAs that work with commercial databases. there are also some terrific ones that work with open source RDBMs. for god's sake, how do you think Postgres was written? and writing a database is a might more difficult than using it, no?
no, it's not about talent out there (after all, how hard is it to learn another RDBMs once you understand the theory? not very.) but rather about features, dependability and availability
Although I am not an Oracle guru, my installation experiences with several versions of Oracle on both Linux and Solaris boxen have always proven cumbersome to say the least. Of course, once we got an Oracle Ninja on our team these problems have all but disappeared. I can't speak specifically to the Linux 8i install, but I bet that the fancy dressings (i.e. generalized Linux distro logic) was scratched from the list in the rush to get 8i out the door. Despite delivery flaws, I like the fact the Oracle is pursuing Linux, even if it is for its own financial gains. I don't think Oracle is trying to please the home hacker, they are creating opportunities for mid to large(r) sized companies to move from more expensive Sun/HP solutions to Linux/Apache/Oracle clusters built from less expensive hardware. Of course large Sun/HP camps have quality control, support, and budget issues, and because of the Status Quo FUD, Linux is still pretty much marginalized (at least where I work!) -K The database isn't as important to me anymore, as long as my Perl DBI code runs fast!!!
We've got enough enterprise credibility, publicity, good press, user base, advocacy, and other political benefits. Now all we need is the technology to match it. Linux is a great kernel. GNU is a terrific set of utilities around that kernel. X is a decent graphics subsystem. But the operating system isn't complete yet. The GUI is immature, and we've still got a few other crucial features to add before we're ready to take on the mainstream. No offense, but Red Hat isn't the perfect operating system for my mother's box yet. It probably will be in another year or two. Shouldn't we cool it a bit on the advocacy and publicity until the technology is there to the point where we're ready to have people try our OS?
(well, that and the ease of remote administration using ports, giving the advantage of fast downloads without hunting, and compileing software optimized completely to my hardware with the right /etc/make.conf flags).
/etc BY HAND when you upgrade dFreeBSD istribution is just a pain in the ass. I conclude that Debian GNU/Linux is more maintainable but FreeBSD has its own good points too.
I also don't want to sound like a Debian nut, but I must say that I like the Debian package management more (real packages not some makefiles.) One thing I don't like about ports is that one has to remake the ports after cvsuping the ports collection. When you upgrade Debian every deb package that is in distribution is upgraded. Second, I don't like compiling them all the time, some packages take a while to compile and all I wanted to see is how this cool-progie-2.3 works. On debian "apt-get install something" will get and install the something package. But yes, sometimes I do like getting the source to deb packages and rebuilding them to give better optimization for system.
And updating everytning in
I finally got my Oracle8i Enterprise Edition for Linux cd today! YaY!
>Sounds like Oracle is desperate for some good PR. They're taking a >beating for backing out of the recent PC Magazine performance test.
You are an idoit, you know that? After all the MindCraft/PC Week benchmark bullshit, a company like Oracle would really have to stupid to allow their product to be "benchmarked" by a magazine like PC Magazine. They quite simply don't have either the knowlege or the skills to pull something like this off, and more and more people are realizing this. You're going to see even more companies refuse to allow their products to be "reviewed" in mags that use that kind of shoddy testing in the future.
In my experience, the fun of installing ODBC for Oracle is just the beginning of the delight.
I personally am far from convinced of the viability of using ODBC and Oracle to create robust software usable by end users.
It may be that the native APIs are better, but are hardly what you would call 'high level'.
rms describes Oracle's ``Open Source'' strategy in
http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:
Despite all that other stuff, Bill Gates does make a lot of contributions to education. Ellison, with all his billions, should buy Troll/Qt and GPL Qt. He could claim the whole thing with some sort of spin that it's for all the young programmers working on Linux, to give them even more freedom to learn and hack on it -- or something like that. The result would be an end to all that stuff about Qt not being GPL, and maybe a merger with Gnome to create an even BETTER GUI for Linux. (something that would play into Ellison's need to see MS lose market share)
According to IDC, BSD marketshare is shrinking. The plain truth is there's no big money to be made with BSD. Even simple apps like CDE have proven a financial failure when they were marketed to BSD, so much so that they are no longer available. The company I work for ported one of our major applications to FreeBSD and we only sold 5 copies. The Linux port is still selling strong, maybe even a little better than Solaris. Although I don't have the exact figures, our Linux sales are at least past the 2000 mark. With SGI and IBM joining the Linux parade with tweaked versions of Linux tailored to high performance hardware (64 way SMP in SGI's case), the attractiveness of Linux for Oracle is all the more appealing. We all know Oracle is targeted to companies with money to spend, not to granny and her recipe collection.
It's more correct to say that Ellison paid other people to sail his 80 foot maxi-boat, even in races where the owner was required to sail.
Ellison is a wimpy dilettante, not a sailor. Contrast with Steve Fossett - super-rich *and* balls of steel.
I received an early adopters CD of Oracle 8i on linux, and I have to say WTF Oracle? The installation uses a Java based installer, hard coded to run from /usr/local/jre ... Hmmm nothin in the docs about chaning that. Ok, create a symbolic link... hmmm Can't run the install as root? Ok... then during the installation I have to drop to shell and run some root enabling script... cant two temp dirs because of privilages? Hmmmm...drop to shell, su to root, create the dirs by hand...back to the installer... then it tries to create a directory in /proc and fails... finally it gives me an error saying Java.Lang.Thread failed... Great testing guys, and Im runnin Redhat 6...The html docs are horrible, and mention none of this, plus the installer gives me no clues as to what and how to name my database and associated accounts. Then when all is installed and done, I'm left with a bunch of files in a OraHome1/bin dir that I have no idea what they do. How do I run it? How do I administer it? SQL 7 is feeling pretty comfy right now... -doog
Have all the back issues of Slashdot prior to June 21st been deleted? The earliest issue still available by following the standard URL pattern is June 21st 1999 http://slashdot.org/ index.pl?section=&issue=730291&mode=thread. This is off-topic but nowhere else exists on Slashdot to ask Slashdot-specific questions in public.
Maybe you should have a friendly talk with a friendly Oracle consultant to correct some of your misconceptions.
You should never use raw partitions without having benchmarked YOUR application. Using raw partitions is sometimes a requirement (for example with OPS), but other than that my default choice would be to use the file system.
OODBMS are not "much better". They are more suited for some kind of work. If you are an OO programmer with a persistence need in a single-user (or low user count) situation, then yes go to OODBMS. If you are a database programmer (OO or not) having to deal with thousands of concurrent users and petabytes of data there is no way to beat Oracle right now (well almost, nothing is absolute).
Oracle's optimizer is not perfect, that's true. However with enough experience you start writing your queries in an efficient style (and not the "I am a Java programmer,I hate SQL and will do as I please" style).
I was a technical consultant (specialized in OO & low level programming (read OCI)) at Oracle until a few months ago. I do have some knowledge of those topics.
A lot of this is due to the fact that there's a lot of bad blood between Microsoft and pretty much everyone else: Oracle, IBM, Dell, Gateway, and others.
Microsoft is currently reaping the rewards of their arrogance and bullying of the past. Oracle sees an opportunity to package a complete top-to-bottom database solution that kicks a lot of ass, and write Microsoft completely out of the picture. Initially, they picked Sun and Solaris, but that was before Linux took really off. If they had to do "Raw Iron" again, they would go with Linux -- no doubt about it.
A rather unique feature of Oracle's database design is that each database client is serviced by a separate task (well, that was true the last time I checked, a few years ago, but I'm sure that's still the case today). This is unlike their competitors - Sybase and Informix - whose database engines are basically single processes which multiplex themselves amongst all currect clients. The latest versions of their servers do support multithreading, but because multithreading is implemented differently on pretty much every *nix, they may not be able to take advantage of any particular platform's unique multithreading abilities.
Meanwhile, Oracle's database servers had separate processes servicing clients for at least a decade now. Which means that on SMP machines Oracle servers should be able to kick some major ass. I never actually had a chance to play with Oracle on a multi-CPU box, but knowing the way their servers work, I would expect them to positively smoke.
No wonder Oracle is salivating over Linux now. SMP on NT is a pathetic joke. With Solaris, you have to sign over your bank account to Sun, in order to purchase a multi-CPU license (I'm not sure if Solaris x86 even supports SMP). An Oracle solution on a Linux box with a couple of Xeons should have a rather impressive price/performance factor.
--
arguments from authority are neither impressive nor valid.
you see:
(a) i was an Oracle consultant for better than 7 years. i also contributed to 2 tomes on SQL optimization in Oracle (if you think real hard you can figure out which ones).
(b) i've implemented massive real-time systems in Versant, ODI and Objy for companies like Ameritech, GTE, and AT&T. in all cases we replaced Oracle 7.x or 8 systems and acheived performance improvements measured in orders of magnitude.
i could go on but the topic was Linux and Oracle. I generally agree this is a good thing but methinks you toot the horn of Ideological dogma a bit much.
peace, code, and linux!
Insert mind here.
habitrail:/usr/src/linux/include /dev/null
hacksaw > egrep "typedef.*uid_t" */* 2>
asm-alpha/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned int __kernel_uid_t;
asm-arm/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
asm-i386/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
asm-m68k/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
asm-mips/posix_types.h:typedef long __kernel_uid_t;
asm-ppc/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned int __kernel_uid_t;
asm-sparc/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
asm-sparc64/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned int __kernel_uid_t;
asm-sparc64/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t32;
asm/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
[deletia]
linux/types.h:typedef __kernel_uid_t uid_t;
So the answer is "depends". A short is signed, BTW. It's not clear how a a uid of 50,000 would be dealt with.
Pin the spig.
Right. They can make money doing it. That's what makes it s a good decision!
Comparing Oracle to Postgres or MySQL is just a poor decision. As is comparing Oracle on a 64 CPU Sun box vs. SQL Server running on a Quad Xeon...
asm-i386/posix_types.h:typedef unsigned short __kernel_uid_t;
The uid is an unsigned, not signed, so anything between 0 and 65535 inclusive is legal.
There are 32-bit uid patches around.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
It would be cheaper than implementing Raw Iron on HP, for them and everyone else.
According the papers I read, the first version of Oracle with a minimal OS (enough for bootstrapping the servers) was called Raw Iron and ran on HP. Solaris was/is due 'soon'.
For all that, Linux would be the perfect platform for that project - create a minimal kernel that just supports I/O and networking, sit it on a boot partition and let Oracle do the rest itself.
On this point, we wholeheartedly agree. The more enterprise DBMS' ported to Linux the better. When is Informix's Linux port due; do you happen to know?
...Then perhaps I can begin a campaign for FreeBSD and BSDI ports or said DBMS'.
Then again, they also claimed Java support would be in 4.0. (A don't reply with 'Try Kaffe'; Kaffe is a nice excercise but doesn't hold up well for production purposes).
I am just trying to point out that popularity some times flies in the face of logic. If we have to go with Linux, then, the LSB will be more important than ever... And, along those lines, it would mean that the LSB would be more important than standards getting in the way of development of Linux itself, because without standards, someone like Red Hat could end up being the only Linux that VAR/ISV's want anything to do with.
jimmy smokes crack!
First Post!
I'm seriously glad to see this. I've been a big fan of Oracle for a while, and once Linux has a stable kernel with Large Files support in it, it'll be excellent! I'm all for it!
I'm sure we'll be seeing 'big announcements' like this at every Linux show from now on. If I remember correctly, they are scheduling 4 Linux Worlds a year, and then there's all the other shows. That's a lot of announcements. And of course every business wants to make bigger and better news to smother all of the other announcements. It seems as though it wouldn't take very long for the 'big news' to become not so big anymore. Eventually, they could announce that Bill Gates was installing Slackware at home and we may not even blink.
Ok. Maybe we won't be *that* numb.
-Lisa
Analysts say it's a smart move for Oracle to latch onto the growing Linux movement and to lessen its reliance on Microsoft and Windows.
:)
Wasn't Oracle trying to distance themselves from all OS's with "RAW"-something or other?
I believe they are latching on to the hype over Linux more than lessening their reliance of Microsoft. They are fairly cross-platform already.
Really, how dependent is Oracle on Microsoft systems? When I think of Oracle I always think UNIX. It is probably just me.
Since the synopsis mentions making Linux more credible in enterprise environments, there's one enterprise-level feature that wasn't in Linux the last time I looked (which, admittedly, was early 1998): >16bit UIDs. Does any distro currently support more than 65536 users?
[PLEASE don't flame me for not knowing this.]
Peace dude [-)
Sorry, I must have skipped the part about Raw Iron.
I still have to ask how using a Solaris kernel drops their dependency on Windows NT. Why not ask people to just run Solaris?
P.S. Obviously, I do not know much about Raw Iron.
Posted by Justin:
perhaps the term "enterprise credibility" was misleading. i didn't mean using it in an enterprise-critical application, but rather giving people who make purchasing and other decisions in large businesses a good impression of linux.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ellison decides to sell complete servers with an Oracle Linux distribution installed. They'd probably put an emphasis on speed and security and integrate an oracle database server.
Then, they'd start making all kinds of 'improvements' to non-kernel-related aspects of the Oracle Linux distribution.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Truthfully, there are a few more areas where Linux isn't ready for the enterprise. At least for mission critical applications.
Primarily the missing elements relate to high availability applications, with failover capability.
Things like a journalling file system, and HA clustering (no, Beowulf doesn't do high-availability) are desperately needed. I know there are some early projects in the works to address these issues, but they don't seem to be ready for prime-time just yet.
Now, if I could run Oracle 8i Enterprise for Linux with the parallel server and hot standby database options enabled, I would be happy. But, truthfully, when you get a web license for Oracle (licensed by CPU power, not per concurrent user), the costs of the Oracle licenses are so much higher than hardware/os licensing costs, that buying a couple of Ultras and SunCluster isn't that big of a deal anymore. What's $100,000 worth of hardware/os when the Oracle licenses cost $500,000.
And, if you don't need the high availability features of 8i Enterprise, then you probably don't need the Enterprise version at all. Then, Oracle 8 on Linux is well suited for your needs. At least that's what I've found to be true.
Linux is evolving rapidly, and I do prefer it for ordinary work, but it just isn't in the game yet when it comes to enterprise level, high availability implementations.
Ellison may have antipathy towards MS, but I'll wager that has little to do with the decision. Ellison is a businessman and antipathy earns little money by itself. Ellison won't start a linux division unless he knows it will make money. (He might enjoy a linux division more if it succeeds, contributing to the success of linux and hurting Windoze, but that's another matter.)
--JT
I reckon that'a about it as far as the battle for enterprise credibility is concerned. What's the next crusade?
[paranoia mode on] THEY ARE TAITING OUR OS WITH THEIR NON-FREE CRAP!!! [paranoia mode off] Well, actually, at least one battle would be over (the kernel); then we can destroy them with their proprietary I-can't-port-this-to-my-new-arch-since-I-have-no-s ource crap.
Don't think so. Larry left his company to dwindle and disintegrate amid rabid infighting while he sailed around the world on his 80 foot yacht. In recent years he's been acting like managing oracle is a hobby he indulges in from time to time. Oracle has suffered from this. I doubt Larry, or anyone else at Oracle believes that they selling a ridiculously overpriced piece of software that runs on a free OS is sound buisness. They just don't want to get left behind in the great linux stampede.
--Shoeboy
IIRC, the Raw Iron initiative involves a minimal Solaris kernel without the usual trappings of the OS. Administrators would scarcely know Solaris was there providing low level services to the Oracle software. Presumably, the installation disks for Raw Iron would include the minimal OS so you could literaly start with a "raw iron" computer and a CD and do a single install process.
After installation, the advantage would be to allow Oracle database analysts to do the complete administration of a dedicated database box without support from a sysadmin. Of course, it could be tuned specifically for good database performance without considering other services -- other than SQL*Net type things that support database connectivity.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Well, the problem was (like for many other systems, MS SQL Server included) user-defined functions. I limited each vendor to documentation that came with the demo and/or find on the website. Nowhere does IBM note how to actually create a user-defined function. They go on and on about how to CALL them, but nothing about creation.
I might also note that at the time I did the test DB2 on Linux was beta only AND more expensive than Oracle.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I understand Oracle has been ported only to x86 Linux. But 32 bit architecture is quickly running out of steam. In fact, for large databases 4 gig memory space is nowhere near enough already. I wonder if they plan to port it to other platforms, such as Alpha or PPC. Insidentally, how well does Linux support 64-bit memory on these platforms? What about SMP on them?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Sounds like Oracle is desperate for some good PR. They're taking a beating for backing out of the recent PC Magazine performance test.
Seems like PC Mag wanted to do a fair comparison test of Oracle8i versus Microsoft's SQL Server by running the exact same test on the same hardware. Both sides originally said O.K., but then Oracle chickened out! Me thinks they got worried that they'd get trounced. We should try to get PC Mag to do it with MySQL.
Anyhow, check out the article. It's pretty funny.
Let's theorize that my DBA has left me... For the sake of this, we'll assume that my company uses DB2.
:)
I've now got two applicants in front of me... One has experience, and is even certified to develop, Oracle 8 databases. The other, says he's been developing in Postgres or MySQl. All other things being equal, I'll choose the Oracle admin any day.
Why?
Regardless as to how little you value certification, it means something. If nothing else, it means that the applicant is dedicated enough, or an ex-employer saw enough potential, to spring the money to get the certification (never mind the actual work involved).
Second. In my mind, an Oracle DBA will have a much better mindset as to what's required in an enterprize than one whose experience lies soley in MySQL on Linux (or any other 32 bit platform). Why? Oracle is a corporate application. These people are used to meetings and structure. From what I've read here, Linux-ites are opposed to it.
Oracle can SCALE. MySQL??? Even if it can address a 64 bit address space, can it really utilize it? How about optimizations? Oracle is supported on many platforms. By supported, I mean that I can call them in, shell out $$$, and they'll get the thing to work. MySQL? Oh. I get the source code. That's not the same as support in my book. If MySQL could scale, how come Slashdot only keeps my postings accessible for what 30 days?
I've never seen benchmarks with MySQL or Postgres vs. Oracle. If Oracle would allow, I'd love to see the comparison. I'm sure you'd cringe, though, and say, "well, wait for the 3.2 kernel to come out. That doesn't cut it in my book."
And yes, once you know the theory of RDBMs' you can probably get around in any of them. But do you trully know the specific one? NO. You may know a little about all of them, but there's nuances to be learned. That's why a Linux admin can't say they know Solaris (unless they do). Configurations are different - text files in different places, etc... You can get around in it, do the basic stuff, but to really shine, you'd need to buckle down and specialize.
That's all in my opinion!
Maybe I shouldn't have put 'improvements' in quotes like that. I honestly don't care how many/few distros there are, or who makes them.
I was just putting a prediction out there in case, in the unlikely case that I am right, I can say "I knew it" to nobody in particular.
It just struck me as the type of thing Oracle would do. I am actually VERY happy every time some company moves away from windows toward Linux, not out of any particular wish to see Bill go down in flames, but because then the chances are just that much better that I will use Linux at work.
I hate using windows at work. grrrrrrrrrrr....
Vidi, Vici, Veni
http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/298088.aspGet with the times and get with SysV.
Whatever advantages FreeBSD has over Linux will be erased within a year.
Now, on workstations, I am still using Linux, because of the better avaliability of software. But, for something like Oracle, I would prefer a direct port to FreeBSD if I were to ever use it. Because of the fact that Oracle has the potential to use a lot of memory, FreeBSD may have an edge in better memory management (always lower memory usage, IMHO it does a more efficent job freeing up used memory while caching the important stuff).
Heh.. Port and ports. I mean a commercial binary of Oracle avaliable for FreeBSD when I mention a "direct port to FreeBSD," not to be confuzed with the FreeBSD ported software that can be compiled from "/usr/ports" (and also not to be confuzed with the type of port, like 80, that everyone is trying to telnet to for the crack.linuxppc.org thing).
Yes, you can sell me software; but it must include the source.
It took our DBA quite a while to get Oracle working. We had to switch from Slackware to Red Hat to get it to run, and install a particular version of gcc to get the demos to compile, but it's up. Now, does anyone know of a way to move code that uses MFC's CDatabase/CRecordset to run on Linux?
You obviously weren't watching last year's Sydney to Hobart ocean racing classic.
Several people died due to a large storm that ripped through the fleet. One of the crew on Sayonara (Ellison's boat) broke his leg (actually Oracle Australia's MD). Ellison said it was the worst he had ever sailed in, and at the time said he would never sail the race again.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
I just finished testing Oracle/Informix/DB2 on NT/Linux and Oracle on Linux is the only system that even finished. (sorry, can't release results--licensing issues)
The only downside is that installing the Oracle ODBC drivers on a client is a 3 day procedure requiring a 84 MB download....
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The article says their main reason for porting Oracle to Linux would be to outflank MS. I don't believe that - I think they're just doing it because they think they can make money with it. They just don't want to loose customers to MySQL/Linux.
0x or or snor perron?!
I think this would be a great move for Oracle. I've been trying for days to get Oracle 8i installed on my pretty vanilla RH6 SMP box. Sure each of the little problems I've come up against are soluble, but I think many businesses would pay big bucks for a distro that let you use Oracle out of the box w/o and kernel recompiling, etc.
:)
Of course, then we'll all have to start supporting the Oracle Package Manager
Can your IM do this?
Everyone help develop PostgreSQL!!! Screw the overpriced, underperforming Oracle!!! Viva La ORDBMS!!!
www.postgresql.org
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
heh...okay so who's crazier, ellison or balmer?
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Go Oracle !
Or upgrade to Oracle ;)