Re: good for the garden

There are some good points here, but many seem to reflect an lack of attention to docs...

Since Linux ( like many Unix setups) has many, many variants ( glibc versions, kernel components, etc) it is not surprising that the installation can be somewhat complex - particularly for what is basically a trial, beta level, port ...

 For NT ( and other windows clients),the same program used to install Oracle products ( Orainst.exe) , also uninstalls them...

As an Oracle administrator for 10 years or so, the quality and integrity of the company is not in question to me, but, as a complex piece of software, I realize that it is not Oracle's fault if I fail to carefully learn about its environmental needs...

No software is perfect ( Microsoft, Red Hat and IBM are no exceptions) but Oracle certainly does not seem to deserve such a broad ( altho based on limited exposure ) rant....

Just my 2c

John Greco
Oracle DBA/Application Developer

"Dorsey Bolliard" <dbolliard_at_clarity-dev.com> wrote:

>My first exposure to Oracle has me somewhat mystified.
>We're in the process of setting up an experimental Linux server (we're
>mainly an NT & As/400 shop), and sent for the Oracle 8 Linux evaluation.
>After two days of messing around we almost have it working. Undocumented
>incompatibilities are bad enough, but when you have to learn about "secret"
>patches through the Linux news groups -- patches that are not reachable
>through visible links from the Oracle site -- that certainly is a cause to
>wonder about the quality of the product and the integrity of the company.
>One has to wonder what kind of marketing genius decide that this kind of
>brittle package would somehow induce the evaluator to send money to the
>perpetrator
>
>
>By comparison, installing our DB2 evaluation was a snap. Point to the
>.rpm, press the button, and there you go.
>
>Coincidentally, we had an opportunity to experience Oracle's wonderful
>implementation on Windows NT at almost the same time. A client had us
>install Oracle Client to support one of their programs, then told us we'd
>have to remove it in order to install Oracle Lite.
>
>Guess what? Oracle has no uninstall capabilities! (Guess they're
>unfamiliar with the concept of "windows compliance") No problem, we
>thought, we'll simply delete the whole c:\orant directory. WRONG!
>Components are in use. Okay, stop EVERY system service. Kill every running
>non-system process. Try again. Forget it. Okay, iterate through the
>registry and delete every key that refers to \orant. Restart the system.
>Stop all services. Kill all processes. Still no go. "This thing is like
>Herpes!" my partner observes. (Actually, it's more like gonorrhea, if you
>ask me.)
>
>Sorry, but no level of performance on earth is worth this kind of
>aggravation, not to mention the principle of not sending money to a company
>who has so little regard for their customers that they sell this kind of
>shoddy product. If SQL Server or DB2 can't match the performance, then I'll
>throw more hardware at it.
>
>Now I'm sure most readers of this group are either Oracle devotees, or have
>no choice in the matter, but for those who may yet be in the decision making
>process, save yourself some grief and try something else - unless, of
>course, you're looking to enrich your garden - Oracle should be quite
>appropriate for that purpose.
>
>db
>
>

  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------    http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==----- Received on Thu Feb 03 2000 - 10:34:10 CST