Re: Any recovery after Oracle exceeds disk limits under Linux?

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:52:09 -0800, deanbrown3d_at_yahoo.com wrote:

> We used FC2 as a testing ground, and put it on several machines. Being
> a small software house, we didn't want to pay much for a supported
> distro, and FC2 was given to me as a recommendation, perhaps a poor
> one, perhaps not. But we are familiar with it now and will stick with
> it, despite it being a beta, if at all possible.

Besides, like all the other 'personal use' Linuxes, FC is intended to be upgraded roughly every 6 months. If one decides to use Fedora, then it is reasonable to put that into the activity plans. If one doesn't want to cycle that fast, then get something that has a longer release cycle.

To that effect, I listed some variants that are free, including patches, that have the same 18 month release cycle as the known-to-be-supported Red Hat Entrerprise version, because they are pure clones.

> But aside from this, why do people get so VERY defensive if anyone dares
> compare a beta with windows?

Because it is unfair to the developers who are busting their butts to make Linux a reasonable competitor to Microsoft Windows? Especially when it's known that many problems have been fixed.

Put yourself in the Linux developers' shoes, which should be easy since you claim to bein a small software house. What would be your reaction if a user said your prerelease sucks when compared to the competitor's released features? Especially when you know that the prerelease is many bug-fixes old but the customer was unwilling to apply the fixes.

/FGB Received on Wed Mar 09 2005 - 10:23:19 CST