Re: 9i on Windows 2000 Server Workgroup

"fu manchu" <leondobr_at_verizon.net> wrote in message news:8a7bd0lb02u22vss8mtjr5ccvuu0b3hkqt_at_4ax.com...

> I want to thank you for taking the time to answer this in detail. Most
> of my previous testing was based on your previous posts.
>
> I've spent way too much time over the past month trying to get this to
> work on a workgroup rather than a domain.
>
> I simply don't have the time to mess with software that doesn't work
> right out of the box, two days max.

I wouldn't spend two days max trying to sort something out like this. It ought to work out of the box, period. Where we part company is that this is precisely what the software does for me, and not for you.

>I reinstalled Windows and 9i
> (software only, made the database after) one more time with no joy,
> same listener error, gave up, and installed 10g which worked first try
> (thanks for the global name tip, that was the answer I was hoping
> for).

Well, it's not much of a tip, is it, really? Let's see: screen 3 of 8 in 9i's DBCA has this to say: "An Oracle 9i database is uniquely identified by a Global Database Name, typically of the form "name.domain"". It's there is black and white, in other words, if only we all got more used to actually reading screens before reaching for the mouse to click 'Next'. I don't suppose this helped the 9i issue? Or had you given up by that stage?

>Versions 807, 817, 73x all worked first try, too, in previous
> installs over the years.

I can only say that if it worked in 7, 8, 8i and 10g, it's almost unbelievable that it wouldn't work in 9i, don't you think? And to reiterate: it does.

> Sadly (or maybe not), the days when people were willing to spend huge
> amounts of time troubleshooting products seems to be over for
> application developers. There are too many other choices, software and
> hardware are cheap and timelines have shrunk. If SuSE 91 doesn't
> install properly, no worries, there's Mandrake 10 or any of dozens of
> others. Oracle won't install? Get MS SQLserver or MySQL.
>
> I guess that's why Oracle came out with 10g.

Well, I won't argue that timelines have shrunk, but I won't go with you in believing that that somehow justifies bad habits (such as not properly naming a database), bad practice (such as not reading installation documentation, or even simply the contents of wizard screens) or complacency (the belief that somehow software should anticipate one's intellectual laziness or practical sloppiness and work around them).

I'm not saying you are, or have exhibited, any of those things, by the way. All I'm saying is, shrunken timelines don't excuse poor practice. And no software is going to work properly if the people installing it are consistently poor practicioners. If there's one thing I've learnt over the years it's this: if it doesn't work, it is almost always going to be *my* fault, not the software's. Only occasionally do I eventually realise that I'm asking the software to do something it was never designed for, or which is genuinely subject to a bug -and I'm talking any piece of software you can name here, not just Oracle.

Regards
HJR Received on Sun Jun 20 2004 - 14:23:39 CDT