Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat

· Ramon F Herrera <ramon_at_conexus.net>:

> On May 8, 6:22 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich..._at_schmarck.cn>
> wrote:

>> Rainer Duffner <rai..._at_ultra-secure.de> wrote:
>> > Michael Schmarck schrieb:
>>
>> >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
>> >> distributions are out there?
>>
>> > Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)
>>
>> Yes, wasn't it? :)
>>
>> But even with Solaris it makes sense that Oracle only supports Solaris.
>> After all, only Solaris 10 (or 11, when it comes out) is the /official/
>> Solaris.
>>
>> That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
>> official Linux there is.
>>
>> Michael

>> That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
>> official Linux there is.

Not correct.

> Oracle never said that RedHat is the only "official Linux". Oracle
> only runs on "Enterprise Linux" -a category very different from
> "Linux".

All right. So? There are also other Enterprise Linux versions out there - eg. SLES. And as far as stability is concerned, even Debian could be well suited. Or Ubuntu LTS, which is guaranteed to be supported (and thus stable) for 3 years.

>
> What Oracle wants to say is:
>
> (1) Oracle is in the server business
> (2) Oracle db only runs on "Enterprise Linux"
> (3) Our official enterprise Linux is RedHat
>
> The mistake many of you (I have really clarified this more often
> that I can count)

I have never heard of you.

> are making is trying to be at level (3) when
> you don't even reach level (1).

Whatever you mean.

Michael Schmarck

-- 
A snake lurks in the grass.
                -- Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil)