Re: Open Source Oracle?

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:03:28 +1000
Message-ID: <4148ca3d$0$23897$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Hans Forbrich wrote:

> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>

>> If only the Linux distributions would calm down a bit, to give Oracle a
>> chance to support something! But by the time they announce Suse 9.1 is
>> supported, Suse 10.2 will be on the market!!

>
> From what I've heard - that is THE reason why Oracle (and RedHat, SuSE)
> had decided to limit support to the 'Enterprise' editions.

This is probably off-topic, but I notice that 10g's prerequisite check looks to see RHAS2.1, RHAS3 and UnitedLinux 1... it doesn't even check for (and hence presumably isn't certified for) SUSE Enterprise Server. That seems a tad unfortunate...

I know Suse had something to do with UnitedLinux, but SLES is still a separate product, unless I'm very much mistaken.

> The way I tend to think of it - the SuSE Personal/Pro, the Fedoras, and so
> on are nothing other than beta tests for the next generation of enterprise
> versions. Put out 3 beta tests between each enterprise version -
> customers get a decent quality, CIOs get the stability they want, tech
> support are all trained up, etc.
>
> I don't think there is any way the zealots are going to back down from the
> rapid cycle - they enjoy upgrades and tests for the sake of upgrades and
> tests.

I'm feeling mildly guilty as I read...

> In the LUGs I attend, a number of the zealots have no idea what an
> application is (hey, Apache is a business application) or why a business
> might be concerned about testing - it's lets get the next upgrade and have
> fun!
>
> I'd rather Oracle support the commercial 'desktop' editions even if
> they're a kernel rev or two behind.

So long as Suse 9.1 is on that list, I'll agree with you :-0

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Sep 15 2004 - 18:03:28 CDT