Howard J. Rogers suggested that:
> 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
> xyz
>
> 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".
The set command is used in UNIX's C shell (csh):
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/~matloff/UnixAndC/Unix/CShellII.html
Also, according to your first response post you replied:
[snip]
> > On UNIX when you create a new database instance you issue
> >
> > set ORACLE_SID=xyx;export xyz
> > set ORACLE_HOME=.....; export ORACLE_HOME
>
>
> News to me. On Solaris and Linux, I've always just done
>
> ORACLE_SID=xxx
> export ORACLE_SID
> [end snip]
Sure does sound to me that you WOULD say the 'set' command is *never* right.
Peachy now Howard?
>
> [snip]
>
>> startup nomount pfile=.....
>
>
> [snip]
>
> 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).
>
> [snip]
>
>> 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!
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
>
>> 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 - 15:15:58 CST
