Re: Running Instances on Windoz

vslabs_at_onwe.co.za (Billy Verreynne) wrote in message news:<1a75df45.0311252339.794e707e_at_posting.google.com>...
> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote i
>
> > > IOW, these GUI tools turn Mr Sysadm/DBA into an ignoramus. On Unix,
> > > the effect is usually the opposite due to the lack of GUI tools.
> >
> > Oracle has managed to undo that with OEM. :-O
>
> Very true.
>
> OEM is a great tool (except for Java and X-Server issues), but it
> should not be a substitute for command line kung fu.
>
> > Well, I was going for a FAQ answer on something supported, but what
> > the hey, you always have more entertaining answers! :-)
>
> Well, I did not get WebCache to work...

Hmm, somewhere (well, the 9iAS server admin guide dependencies chart) I got the idea that was required for Portal?

>
> > So why do we have issues of Oracle closing bugs with "Not feasible to
> > implement?" Why does support recommend using batch files to start and
> > stop? I don't think a few minutes of reading specs answers this at
> > all.
>
> Ah.. some interesting stuff with sharp edges. :-)
>
> If this is done properly using service dependancies, the order and
> timing should not be an issue. Batch scripts are not really the
> correct way to configure Windows' version of rc.d. But then writing
> custom EXEs as services is also not really acceptable either from a
> sysadmin viewpoint.

Hmmmmmmm. Those "shoulds" getcha every time. Are you saying Oracle didn't do the dependencies correctly or is there something to be setup in system services?

>
> > What do you mean by lack of scripting?
>
> cmd.exe is no ksh or bash. And what they did to the FOR command to
> make it more Unix shell script like borders on code rape.

That's what I thought you meant. Definitely a complaint I've had for a looooong time. But the answer has always been, there are better tools available that do run on W. Isn't perl required for Apache anyways?

>
> > Isn't that what that console group policy
> > http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~kisrael/kingmissle.html#penis or whatever the
> > heck it's called is for?
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > Not that I'm a die-hard Windows NT/2000/XP fan. If anything my
> > > favourite o/s still is Siemens' BS2000.. but then that's probably just
> > > nostalgia.. ;-)
> >
> > An honest OS - explicitly BS! :-)
>
> Yeah, but is *2000*. That makes all the difference. ;-)

LOL! While surfing about another issue this morning, I came across a website with a *NEW* graphic next to some Oracle Y2K tools :-)

>
>
> > Well, I'd still like to see someone honestly compare Windows and
> > Linux. Particularly some replicable ordinary hardware configuration
> > that runs good on Linux and crappy on Windows.
>
> Yeah, but then a technical comparison is a technical comparison. And
> that IMO does not play the major role in the business decision in
> selecting an operating system.

Too true. But tactically, it can make a difference in proposing projects. If I can honestly say, "this will run like crap on windows, but run good on linux with the same cheap commodity hardware, and here's some proof" that might get somewhere. But actually, if I don't say that, then I can say "this runs like crap on Windows so we need more/bigger HP's" - that might be better. Or it might mean not getting the project at all, since buying commodity PC's is a different management level than (excuse the expression) "mainframes." *sigh* That's why I let management deal with that sort of thing after I state my technical opinions. And why I wish Windows wasn't such crap.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.comics.com/creators/workingitout/archive/workingitout-20031125.html