Re: Oracle Linux/Virtualization Software

On Nov 29, 9:01 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:

snip

> I'm not counseling blind acceptance. I'm not advising anyone to take
> anything at face value. Isn't it Tom Kyte who has advised over and over
> again the importance of not accepting claims made by self-anointed
> experts?

Well actually I think it starts back with the Greeks and Romans as far as indo-european history goes.

>
> What is at issue here is the difference between scepticism (healthy) and
> cynicism (attitude). I am not saying Oracle is correct and I'm not
> saying Oracle is incorrect. Because I haven't tested the claim in my lab
> and don't know of any reputable independent source that has.
>
> What I object to is this cynical repudiation of a claim based solely
> on the person's attitude of unblemished negativity. There isn't one
> person here that has weighed in with a value judgment that any single
> data point, even a poorly created one, that supports their statement.

You know this blind advocacy of anything oracle is getting pretty old here in cdos from certain posters. As far as I know my original post in this thread concerning VM said this ...

"Oracle claims their VM is 3 times as fast as anything else. Sounds pretty fishy to many of us."

Maybe you should read a definition of "fishy"?

All in all based on the hype from Larry and others in OOW 2007 without any benchmarks provided, tangible testing results ... fishy seems to be right on target to me. It might even be optimistic?

Of course this might seem different to someone who is supporting production systems running 10.1 unpatched versions of oracle on max os x.

. Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 07:53:12 CST