Re: So.....

From: joel garry <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 19, 9:05 am, ddf <> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 7:50 am, John Hurley <> wrote:
> > Peter:
> > # So MS/SQL for AIX is available? Interesting, I didn't notice...
> > You got me laughing here!
> > A few years back we moved all of our oracle workload over to linux
> > ( now on OL 5.7 ) and so far maintenance on x86 64 has been good.
> > Many years back hpux used to be solid from oracle and solaris of
> > course.  Never ran on any aix systems ... but hpux started getting
> > kind of funky a long ways back now.  I guess it does get caught up
> > periodically but sometimes one had to fight thru some weird
> > installation and maintenance issues.
> > Sounds like nuno is running into the same kind of questionable qa on
> > aix that hpux hit a long time back?
> > For many of us it looks like linux and/or solaris is the path with the
> > least amount of problems keeping systems updated ... for now.
> > Back prior to us moving over to linux we were also looking at solaris
> > x86 but you just could not count on timely maintenance on that
> > platform.  I am guessing that this situation is now getting fixed but
> > who knows really?
> Oracle will support what it owns first (Linux, Solaris) then worry
> about the others (it would appear).  As an internal business decision
> it's probably a sound move but on the customer support front it's a
> far cry from the old days when Oracle was simply a database vendor
> dependent upon others to supply the operating systems on which it
> would run.  Oracle, in those days, wisely selected a platform as a
> primary destination for releases [for years it was Solaris, it
> switched to HP then swung back to Solaris, all this before Oracle
> started the current scheme of operating system 'support']  yet all
> others received proper attention after the initial release was
> completed.  Yes, these agreements of days gone by involved direct
> support from the chosen vendors (hardware, software from the 'chosen
> one') but it didn't really interefere with providing support and
> releases for other operating systems, including OS/2, MVS, AS400 and
> smaller UNIX vendors (like MIPS -- remember them?), it just took a

I dunno, back in the VMS days, wasn't that pretty much it? Could be just my DEC-colored glasses, could just be because the gummint money was so important.

> little longer to see the new release.  It seems Oracle has chosen to
> now stay in its own back yard, so to speak -- a back yard composed of
> SPARC Solaris and a variant of Red Hat Linux -- at the expsnse of the
> other operating system vendors.  Support for Solaris x86 is gone
> because, basically, Linux in all of its various 'flavors' has become
> the de facto standard UNIX-like O/S for that platform.  Itanium
> support is gone (possibly because of poor cooperation from HP snce it
> lost its 'favored' status or because Oracle tires of supporting
> proprietary x86-type chipsets); Windows is such a vast collection of
> working and barely working offerings from XP through Windows 7 (which
> is nothing new for Microsoft as Windows98 and their failed UNIX
> offering named Xenix [which SCO bought not too long before it felll]
> will attest).  Keep in mind it's hard to hit a moving target and HP,
> Microsoft and IBM all have been guilty of modifying the operating
> system to fix bugs and unwanted features introduced by other fixes and
> new releases intent on 'keeping up with the Joneses'.  I have a
> feeling there is more to this issue than what we see on the surface
> yet that doesn't help the situation of dwindling support for
> previously supported vendors or the termination of support for some
> vendors/platforms altogether.  It's expensive to shift a data center

Funny you mentioned seeing things, I just posted this in a sigfile: At least now I know I have 139,999 friends in the same boat.

> from Itanium servers to other commodity x86 machines, or to abandon a
> platform simply because Oracle chooses to no longer support it.
> Oracle should realize this and return to the 'days of yore' when it
> truly was a multi-platform RDBMS with a single code base and allowed
> shops of any size to use an enterprise-class database.  As ti
> currently stands only the 'privileged few' get the updates; trying to
> force your customer base to abandon current systems so you can make
> even more money will eventually bite you in the ass and drive
> customers to the competition.  Unless you've bought up all of the
> competition and subverted the free enterprise system.

Now now, we wouldn't want any more anti-trust suits, would we?

Noons wrote:

> Good luck with that. I think Kodak just proved it is a good long term strategy...

Hm, Kodak invented the digital camera, Xerox the personal computer, Seattle Computer Products ms-dos, IBM relational databases... Maybe there is something to this "marketing" thing...


-- is bogus.
Westfield in the news:

-- is bogus.
Received on Fri Jan 20 2012 - 11:39:52 CST

Original text of this message