Re: Solaris x86 & Oracle
From: bdbafh <bdbafh_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <15eba4e8-9a9f-4d8c-9fab-c04c9ac95072_at_k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 5, 5:12 pm, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:58 pm, johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:36 pm, "gym dot scuba dot kennedy at gmail"
>
> > <kenned..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > JBH wrote ...
>
> > .> When oracle is not providing patches and patchsets and new releases
> > of
> > .> software on certain platforms on a timely basis ( versus other
> > .> platforms ) ... one really has to question whether one wants to run
> > .> production systems on that platform.
> > .>
> > .> The dynamics of that whole question with solaris x86 ( really x86
> > 64
> > .> for all serious consideration ) are not back in question.
>
> > JBH actually meant to say ( NOW back in question ) ... in other words
> > since oracle is buying sun maybe solaris x86 will start getting
> > support and timely maintenance.
>
> Aren't typos fun? :-)
>
> I can't help but think this very conversation is happening somewhere
> in the bowels of Oracle, if it hasn't been given a death knell as part
> of cost cutting already. Perhaps one shining knight solaris fanboy
> could save the day, if they haven't all left already.
>
>
>
> > Kennedy replied ...
>
> > Yes, that is why we got off this platform. We were always several
> > patch
> > levels behind and could not get current patches or could get them 9
> > to 12
> > months later. We moved to a mainstream Linux OS. (supported).
>
> jg
> --
> _at_home.com is bogus.https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00...
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <15eba4e8-9a9f-4d8c-9fab-c04c9ac95072_at_k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 5, 5:12 pm, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:58 pm, johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 3:36 pm, "gym dot scuba dot kennedy at gmail"
>
> > <kenned..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > JBH wrote ...
>
> > .> When oracle is not providing patches and patchsets and new releases
> > of
> > .> software on certain platforms on a timely basis ( versus other
> > .> platforms ) ... one really has to question whether one wants to run
> > .> production systems on that platform.
> > .>
> > .> The dynamics of that whole question with solaris x86 ( really x86
> > 64
> > .> for all serious consideration ) are not back in question.
>
> > JBH actually meant to say ( NOW back in question ) ... in other words
> > since oracle is buying sun maybe solaris x86 will start getting
> > support and timely maintenance.
>
> Aren't typos fun? :-)
>
> I can't help but think this very conversation is happening somewhere
> in the bowels of Oracle, if it hasn't been given a death knell as part
> of cost cutting already. Perhaps one shining knight solaris fanboy
> could save the day, if they haven't all left already.
>
>
>
> > Kennedy replied ...
>
> > Yes, that is why we got off this platform. We were always several
> > patch
> > levels behind and could not get current patches or could get them 9
> > to 12
> > months later. We moved to a mainstream Linux OS. (supported).
>
> jg
> --
> _at_home.com is bogus.https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00...
Joel,
Wasn't it one fanboy that ported 8.0.5 to Linux x86 in the first place?
-bdbafh Received on Fri Jun 05 2009 - 17:56:44 CDT