Haximus wrote:
> Fabrizio wrote:
>
>
>>Frank van Bortel wrote:
>>
>>>DA Morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>NetComrade wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you had a choice between RH and SuSe which one would you pick?
>>>>>
>>>>>I found a post that says that Oracle develops on SuSe, but given that
>>>>>we will most likely be running Veritas on Linux, so far RH AS 3.0 is
>>>>>the only choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, I was curious if there is a comparison between the two
>>>>>somewhere from an Oracle Admin perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>.......
>>>>>We use Oracle 8.1.7.4 and 9.2.0.5 on Solaris 2.7 boxes
>>>>>remove NSPAM to email
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know what Oracle develops on but there is no question that
>>>>what the corporation runs itself on: Redhat.
>>>
>>>
>>>But what would be the difference? The extras, the utilities,
>>>the cream on top. Do you care? I don't.
>>>The kernel would be (about) the same, apart from RH ES4 having
>>>less patches that SuSE, but that is because SuSE was very fast
>>>bringing out the latest kernel, whereas Red Hat waited for a
>>>more mature version.
>>>
>>>Of course, a bit of a Linux adept would go and compile his/her
>>>own kernel, wouldn't he?
>>
>>You would lose support from both: Oracle and the Linux vendor. :(
>
>
> I was told that Oracle has a utility to check the MD5 checksums of rpm
> packages installed, if they don't match the release checksums they have
> grounds to refuse support. This is to deter people from installing Oracle
> on "Lineox" (RH AS ripoff) and variants then attempting to qualify for
> support.
Sounds like an urban legend in the making.
If that would be true, they would need a database with all
checksums of every version ever released in the update program.
Never heard of Lineox, but WhiteBox surely is no rip off; RH started
as GPL, they're obliged to publish the source, and WB just compiled
that (which is hard enough - try rebuilding the kernel, as delivered.
Not!)
--
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Received on Wed Mar 02 2005 - 02:42:19 CST
