Re: metalink still unuseable the 2nd day ...
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:51:01 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 12, 11:26 am, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> > problems with it. It'll go away, I'm sure. But did it really need to
> > be like this?
> I'm leaning towards "yes, meatlink was so creaky and fungusoid, it
> did." And yes, I'm one of the loudest squawkers about it. But this
> too will pass, just like the Sidekick fiasco, and Audi sudden
> acceleration, and hacking of Apple keyboards. Oh wait, that last one
> just started.
We disagree here. I didn't have the slightest problem with old
It did its job quite well, metaphorical adjectives apart.
Of course: it didn't support OCM. But hey: I never asked for OCM
neither did a lot of users. It's an imposition from Oracle: not needed,
not asked for. To cause this mayhem and bad blood with clients for the
single reason of updating something that works so that something else no
one asked for could be supported, is sheer madness.
Dunno about you, but after spending weeks disabling half the information about my systems that OCM wanted to collect and settling finally on a "disconnected" setup, I really don't see much value in what it does that wasn't already addressed with SR templates.
And no: there is NO WAY anyone from Oracle Support will EVER convince me they need to know the IP AND the MAC address of every network interface in my servers in order to "collect information" about my databases. That one is bordering on lunacy and just about breaks every mantra of basic system security! Yes, it collects and sends MAC addresses - by default!!!
> The oracle-l thread about quotes from support people on the phone
> trying to access MOS/metalink was pretty funny, too.
Oh yes. Not sure how close to reality it was, but funny indeed! Received on Wed Nov 11 2009 - 21:51:01 CST