Re: oracle 10g installation - access not permitted?

From: Charles T. Smith <cts.private_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:07:29 +0200
Message-ID: <pan.2007.06.04.22.07.25.505781@yahoo.com>

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:00:23 -0700, joel garry wrote:

> On Jun 4, 11:51 am, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:

>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:54:36 +0200, "Charles T. Smith"
>>
>> <cts.priv..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >It would indeed be a bug if I have to reinstall after the installation
>> >process told me that it completed successfully.  I suggest *that* is
>> >irrefutable and therefore makes your "ridiculous" exclaimation ... an
>> >empty claim.
>>
>> I would recommend you stop trolling here, apologize and go away.
>> Obviously you have a faulty install, because you are so 'smart'. Bite
>> the bullet, and re-install, and don't come back here asking for help. In
>> all the time you spent here trolling this forum and flaming and annyoing
>> people here, you could have installed Oracle correctly at least 4 times.
>>
>>

> Come on guys, metalink Note:363721.1 .
>
> "Cause
> 'changePerm.sh' delivered with 10.2.0.2 patchset does not includes the
> latest list of directories which should get relaxed permission. Solution
> For the following platforms, a modified script changePerm.sh is available
> under patch 5087548 and should be used instead of modifying the existing
> changePerm.sh .
>
> AIX 5L
> Solaris (64bit)
> Linux ( x86-64)
> IBM z/OS (OS/390)"
>
> Charles Smith wrote:

>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:30:46 +0200, Frank van Bortel wrote:
>>> Top-posting is one way to shut me up....

>

>>What is top-posting?

>
> That is when you reply to a post starting above what you are replying to.
> For email, that may or may not make sense, but in this group, it is
> considered plain wrong. Either interleave your answer with your reply or
> scroll to the bottom (maybe you have an End key that works for your
> posting software).
>
> jg

Thank you for the excellent information Received on Mon Jun 04 2007 - 17:07:29 CDT