Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: How do I set ORACLE_SID in windows NT environment

Re: How do I set ORACLE_SID in windows NT environment

From: Howard J. Rogers <>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:58:53 +1100
Message-ID: <41be028a$0$5287$>

hpuxrac wrote:
> snip

>>>Did the op ask for advice on setting unix environment variables?

> No.
>>He did provide his take on doing so, and it was incorrect.

> On UNIX when you create a new database instance you issue
> set ORACLE_SID=xyx;export xyz
> set ORACLE_HOME=.....; export ORACLE_HOME
> *** Looks peachy to me except possible typo of export xyz
> *** versus export ORACLE_SID

It doesn't look peachy to me:

[howardjr_at_sapphire ~]$ set ORACLE_SID=xyz; export ORACLE_SID [howardjr_at_sapphire ~]$ echo $ORACLE_SID

As opposed, that is, to:

[howardjr_at_sapphire ~]$ ORACLE_SID=xyz; export ORACLE_SID [howardjr_at_sapphire ~]$ echo $ORACLE_SID

Notice the null result in the first case, and the correct result in the second.

Now, that could just be my shell. And I won't say the 'set' command is *never* right, because I don't know enough about shells and Unix generally to make such a comment. But that's the point: I don't know enough, so I won't say. As opposed, incidentally, to the original poster who said "this is how it is done on Unix".


> startup nomount pfile=.....


I don't know precisely where the discussion is going on this point. It is, of course, blindingly obvious that one HAS to startup nomount in order to be able to issue the 'create database' command, because at that point there is no control file to mount.

And in that context, what the OP wrote was fine, and I was wrong to pick him up on it. A mis-reading of his post lead me to believe he was trying to connect to an already-existing database. My mistake (we do all make them).


> I am done with this thread. My final thought, which I saw recently in
> another thread by someone else, is to consider the tone and manner in
> which contributors such as Tom Kyte or Jonathan Lewis approach this
> newsgroup.

How those two specific people choose to post is down to them. They would not, I think, expect to be seen as some sort of international standard of wholesomeness and purity on the matter. People can be nearly as knowledgeable as either of them, but have different styles or opinions about how best to point out folly when they see it. I certainly believe in the "tell it like it is" approach.

> Perhaps you and HJR are already at this same level as those people.
> More power to you guys if that's the case.

I don't know what being "on the same level" means. It's not something I would say about myself; it's not something I would think about myself; and it's not something I would aspire to in any case. I'm me. And I post as me. In my way. And I post more or less as I would speak to you directly, face to face. I'd call you an idiot face-to-face if I felt it warranted. And I'd call you a genius face-to-face for the same reason. Fortunately, I suppose, for all concerned, I rarely meet either idiots or geniuses.

Honesty. That's all we can really aspire to, isn't it?

> Neither of those guys, to my knowledge, ever asks why people are asking
> questions or alleges that the person asking the question may be not be
> up to the challenge. They just answer the question ... that's it.

Again, what they do or don't do is their affair. How I post is mine. But in any case, you will see in many of their replies that they 'lead' a poster on in new directions of thought. They don't often, in other words, simply provide a point-by-point answer and leave it at that. There is usually something else to discuss or something else to research as a result of their posts.

You might also notice that they don't tend to answer questions about 'how do I use an operating system' in the first place. Which means they are usually dealing with a different, er, "class" of poster. For want of a better word.

It is extremely easy to be polite, and pleasant, and never offend anyone, if the only circles you move in or deal with are smart people who are already on your own wavelength. The tricky bit is to tell people honestly that something they've written is daft without offending them!

> I used the word insult in my earlier post. I apologize if that was not
> your intention. It is way too easy to type into a computer and have
> your fingers come up with words you would not use in a face to face
> conversation.
> My opinion only -- pointing out problems and correcting the advice that
> people give in response to questions posted on this newsgroup is way
> different from speculations about the posters asking questions.
Received on Mon Dec 13 2004 - 14:58:53 CST

Original text of this message