Re: Oracle's relationships with expert DBAs (and the rest of us mere mortals)

• Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com> wrote:
  > Interesting that you don't include solaris 10 there. The matrix for 9.2 and
  > 10.2 currently looks like this for solaris
  

I speak of things I have direct experience of. Our business will run another 5-6 years on Solaris 2.9 -- there's absolutely no need to consider Solaris 10. And even if I included Solaris 10 it would further prove my point (which I will reiterate below).

> for 10gr2 in both cases the additional notes are that 10.2.0.2 is available.
> Suggesting that support for linux from Oracle is less good than support for
> Solaris really doesn't wash ...

Did I suggest that ORACLE's support for Linux is not as good as for Solaris? No! Support and efficiency are two different things.

The point was that one of the largest ORACLE APPS/Solaris shops ran on the same hardware/os for 7 years and when it came time to upgrade all that had to be done was a relink of ORACLE binaries.

I then backed my statement up with ORACLE Certification of ORACLE 9iR2 EE on:

   RH-E vs Solaris

Proving that it's takes less work to run ORACLE on Solaris LONG TERM (in this case > 10 years).

• Vitaliy -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l