Re: We want Oracle for Linux !!!

In article <aak2.853628031_at_Isis.MsState.Edu>, aak2_at_Ra.MsState.Edu (Atif Ahmad Khan) writes:
> You see, my copy of Oracle says that it is for Solaris X86 2.4 and I am using
> it on a Solaris X86 2.5.1. And not only that Sun releases new patches for
> 2.5.1 release almost every week.

This is an excellent point, and it's also true that not all Oracle products are supported for the same platforms. I'm still running Oracle server 7.2.3, 'cos one of the applications I needed to run wasn't "certified" on 7.3 at the time, with Solaris 2.5- *unless* I was using Intel Solaris. Huh? Well, apparently some customer wanted that configuration enough to pay for the certification, or so Oracle staff told me.

So, the point is, money talks. This doesn't come as a shock: if, oh, Unilevel, GE, Ford, Dow Chemical, Wall St. Stock Exchange, etc., or any other large corp said to Oracle, "We want Oracle on Linux, $ker-chingg$!", Oracle would do it. That's not likely to happen, unfortunately.

Money talks from other angles, too. How much does, say, Intel Solaris + Oracle cost, right now? Compared to NT and SQL Server, or Access? I'm not claiming that I'm comparing like with like, but the cost of the operating system and non-PC hardware cranks the bottom line up a bit, and might price the addition of an Oracle database out of the market. Chop it down to a bog-standard PC workstation plus Linux, and you've got something which could serve a small Oracle community for much less money.

Right now, I'd say the biggest obstacle to Oracle on Linux is that Oracle are (or should) be sweating hard to gain NT market share, simply because Microsoft has an advertising budget the size of Belgium, and Linux doesn't.

-- 
<Steve_Kilbane_at_cegelecproj.co.uk>
The above are *definitely* my own opinions, and nothing to do with my
emplyers.