Re: What else against 9.0.1

"Peter van Rijn" <p.vanrijnRM_at_THISzhew.nl> wrote in message news:vcn1d7j569rs67_at_corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell_at_eds.com> schreef in bericht
> news:2687bb95.0305210537.5e464c2d_at_posting.google.com...
> > "Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
> news:<3ecb4ffd$0$16256$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > > Ask them if they apply the policy of desupporting
> > > the latest version of database software to ALL
> > > database suppliers.
> > >
> > > Or is this an "Oracle special"?
> > >
> > > Seriously, get as heavy as you can on them.
> > > Who's paying the $$$ here? Your company or them?
> > >
> > > It's them that have to run, not you!
> > > Or is one of your bosses on the payola?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers
> > > Nuno Souto
> > > wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
> > > "Peter van Rijn" <p.vanrijnRM_at_THISzhew.nl> wrote in message
> > > news:vcmhkjrjejmuf7_at_corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > > Last week one of our software vendors has been trying to get the
> middleware
> > > > product Verastream (WRQ) working with our 9.2.0 (test) database. So
> far they
> > > > haven't been very successful and they (i.e. WRQ) suddenly decided to
> change
> > > > their strategy: they don't support 9.2.0 anymore!!
> > > >
> >
> > Peter, add the fact that Oracle 10 is nearing release. I have heard
> > November of this year but I do not have a source.
> >
> > You might point out that there are other middleware solutions
> > available on the market including IBM's MQ Series and that JAVA has
> > builtin communication features that make writing a system feasible for
> > many simple from A to B and back situations.
> >
> > HTH -- Mark D Powell --
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks. What makes it more difficult is that I'm not directly involved
with
> WRQ, the middleware vendor. It's our application vendor who decided to use
> Verastream (formerly known as SuperNova). And I don't know how hard they
> want to push. And they most certainly are not willing to spend time and
> money to use other middleware. They know we hardly have an alternative for
> their software.
>
> What I really was looking for are a few juicy stories about how bad 9.0.1
> was, and how glad we should be that the maginificent 9.2.0 is now
available
> ;-)
>
> regards,
> Peter
>
>
>

OK, opinionated, unjusifiable rant here:

First releases are usually a waste of time.

I didn't really bother with 9i until 9.2.0.1 ( with which I am quite impressed, actually; but far too many bugs before that).

Similarly, IMHO Oracle did't even start to get their act together on 8.0 until 8.0.4, or with 8i until 8.1.6 (although I confess I have production systems running - with workarounds - on 8.1.5).

Personally, I wouldn't complain if the app vendor certified for 8.1.7.4 and higher on 8i, and 9.2.0.1 and higher on 9i. But to withdraw all 9i support seems to me, as you imply, to be a a dead end.

Lastly, I too have heard rumours of 10i for November. Likely I will install the initial release on my home PC to play with, until it get serious (unless of course it requires 2 gig of RAM and 30 gig of disk space).

Regards,
Paul Received on Wed May 21 2003 - 15:27:08 CDT