Re: Need p3006854_9204_LINUX patch.. for linux testing

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:41:41 -0800
Message-ID: <1100241624.604253@yasure>

mhthomas wrote:

> pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) wrote in message news:<1e8276d6.0411092324.7219389c_at_posting.google.com>...
>

>>I have an ethical problem with a company that on the one side is
>>saying you can download our software and play with it for free and on
>>the other one didn't provide for free even the patch needed for
>>installation of it. Personally, I do not have to care about it,
>>because I always have some valid support contract around, but I
>>understand the guys who are not so lucky.

>
>
> Good post. Truth != Marketing. Obviously.
>
> So, the original poster's question remains.
>
> Is it ethical to share the file because Oracle's marketing says its
> free to download and install (implies all required files) an
> evaluation?
>
> Is it not ethical to share a file from Metalink because the recepient
> does not have a paid license? BTW, the recepient admits they have no
> license, and simply wish to play with the product.
>
> In my opinion:
> <RANT>
> Basically, this happens again and again. It seems to me that Oracle
> does not care to provide evaluations of products on enterprise
> versions of LINUX, except for paying customers, OTN be damned. There
> are many clear examples, throughout the Oracle product line. Why is
> that?
> </RANT>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike

One can evaluate 9.2.0.1 just as well as 9.2.0.5.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Fri Nov 12 2004 - 00:41:41 CST