Re: How to install oracle on UNIX

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:28:56 +0000
Message-Id: <416599a3$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Tom Barnes wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:<4164c9a7$0$23894$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...

>> >> Your practical and empirical experience on this matter is as nought
>> >> compared with the direction Oracle itself is moving in, I would say.
>> > 
>> > Tom Barnes wrote:
>> >
>> > No offense, but couldn't I say the same thing about your instructions
>> > for how to install Oracle on unsupported Linux platforms?

>> Whether or not Oracle supports distro X, my instructions for distro X
>> would have still included instructions for setting the kernel parameters.

>
> I guess what I was trying to say was... Your material is hands-on
> instructions on how to install Oracle in the
> not-quite-100%-Oracle-approved way (ie you're installing on
> unsupported platforms). Keg was also explaining how to install Oracle
> without following Oracle's guidelines 100%.

True, and I didn't say he couldn't or shouldn't. Merely that *practically* there were reasons why his 'non-conformist' approach would cause problems in all versions since at least 8.0 (the fact that the installer by default creates a database as part of the install); and that Oracle's own products are moving beyond allowing that to be an option (ie, 10g's prerequisite checks).

The practical consequence, of course, being that the installation actually doesn't work; that half-way through, it chokes; or that, in 10g's case, it won't even start.

On the other hand, however unsupported the platforms I describe might be, at least they all work. So it's not quite a one-to-one comparison you're making there.

But really... let's just leave it there, shall we?

>> Third and final: go and read what I originally wrote aga
>> >> in. Put it all  
>> back into context. There is not the whif of flame about it.

>
> I was commenting on the whole thread, not your post specifically. I am
> not accusing you of flaming, I apologize if you think I did.

Apology accepted. And you're not the first person to write a reply in direct response to a post of mine and then claim it was really a post to the world in general.

But I do wish people wouldn't do that. Pick on some other poor sucker's posts to do that to, please.

HJR Received on Fri Oct 08 2004 - 00:28:56 CDT