Re: Why doesn't Oracle care about Linux as IBM does?

Darcy <benoit_at_no.spam.please> wrote:

>Actually, I care very much about Linux. While working with a small
>start-up company, the ability to use Linux as our servers saves us a fair
>bit of money (not to mention time and headaches that we would have had if
>we were to use Windows products).

I'll agree with that.

>
>This is the state the company was in when I started: They had tried
>on-and-off for about 3 weeks to get Oracle working - they couldn't do it.

Some knowledge missing, obviously.

>I worked for about 4 hours and had DB2 up and running. It took me another
>2 weeks to get Oracle working.
>
>then we switched up to RedHat 7.0.

I installed oracle 8.1.7 to RH6.2 in two hours (mainly waiting) and I created tablespaces and users in that time, too.

8.1.7 is not certified for RH7.0 and it (RH7.0) needs some library patches for Oracle to work, which is said in installation manual.

>DB2 installed again in all of about 25 minutes.
>Oracle wouldn't work at all.

You couldn't get it working and that's a different thing.

>I, personally, have found DB2 easier to install on just about any machine
>that I have used. I have had DB2 on NT, ME, RedHat 7.0, Redhat 6.1 and my
>Palm III. I don't think that I would be that lucky in getting Oracle on
>any/all of these.

I've installed different versions of Oracle on DOS, NT, RH5.2, RH/6.2, Slackware 3.4 and HP-UX 10. RH5.2 was tough as the installer was quite beta, but otherwise no major problems.

Tuomas Received on Thu Aug 16 2001 - 08:41:23 CDT