Re: 9i on Windows 2000 Server Workgroup

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 05:23:39 +1000, "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:

>
>"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
>

Fair enough. But I'd still say that Oracle could have been clearer. Sure, name.domain is clear when you have a domain, but what does it mean when you have a workgroup, not a domain? That was the whole point, I think. Received on Sun Jun 20 2004 - 20:05:47 CDT