Re: Re: support on 10G R2
From: <anelson77388_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:09:46 +0000
Message-ID: <001517573ef6cffb160464377cc7_at_google.com>
You certainly have it right. I never thought that Oracle's policy actually meant what it said because of the factors you cite. There are only so many resources in Oracle to certify tech stacks. They can really only maintain so many different versions in test and so on. But my CIO took it as gospel and it really bit us.
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:09:46 +0000
Message-ID: <001517573ef6cffb160464377cc7_at_google.com>
You certainly have it right. I never thought that Oracle's policy actually meant what it said because of the factors you cite. There are only so many resources in Oracle to certify tech stacks. They can really only maintain so many different versions in test and so on. But my CIO took it as gospel and it really bit us.
Allan Nelson
On Mar 2, 2009 12:44pm, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> That's essentially because the policy enshrines what was always in
> fact the case, that because you are buying from a software developer
> you really need to be reasonably current. In the apps world for
> example 11.5.10.1 is of a similar provenance to 9.2.0.1 on the db
> side. It isn't realistic to get support for the latter without
> applying patchsets. It surprises me that people believe application
> software might be different. Not you but companies that avoid interim
> upgrades because of the cost, but which them complain that the
> enforced upgrade really costs.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Mar 03 2009 - 08:09:46 CST