Re: Oracle for Linux

[Quoted] Steve Phelan <stevep_at_pmcgettigan.demon.co.uk> writes:

[Quoted] You're bringing in most of the points that have already been discussed to death in this newsgroup. I'll briefly try to go over it *again*.

>Well, I have used Linux a lot - and I think I can CALMLY comment:
 

>1. Oracle do not support Linux. For most companies this is sufficient to
>completely reject the product as an Oracle platform, and quite rightly
>so. Would you like your business running on an unsupported system?

Our business does run on Linux ! With the exception of one computer that we have Solaris on, since we cannot get Oracle for Linux. See the latest thread in comp.unix.solaris comparing Solaris to Linux, where Sun Engineers themselves admit that Linux is overall faster and specially shines in networking and context switching.

>2. Linux does not offer the scalabilty of our other UNIX systems. Are
>you running Linux with 256 way SMP or MPP? Do you have a 10G (which is
>small) or bigger DB running on Linux? Do you use clustered Linux? Do you
>use fault-tolerant Linux? ...No, thought not.

We do have 4GB database running under Solaris only because we dont have Oracle under Linux. Our Linux servers handle everything else at the office and need very little maintenance.

But just to let you know, people at www.dejanews.com do run everything on Linux machines. They sure have a database that is much bigger than 175GB and growing rapidly. Your database probably pales in comparison.

>3. No Linux support from vendors of most third-party support,
>development and monitoring tools. Yes, Linux does have plenty of
>support, but not from most of the big guys.

[Quoted] [Quoted] You want support from big guys ? You sure sound like a clueless newbie.

I sure prefer to use an OS that doesn't require such a stupid thing.

>4. Fragmented versions and releases. Linux is almost a world of it's
>own. Good knows, UNIX in general is bad enough, but 1001 different Linux
>releases just make things worse.

Oh, no. Not again. This point has been beaten to death. And is usually brought up by people who have no clue whatsoever as to what they are saying. And mostly by people who have not used Linux before. I think I'll pass this one. This is just way too stupid of an argument to waste time on.

>5. Linux is not available for many non-Intel chips in a version than can
>compare with those native UNIXs which are available. Intel chip? No
>problem. But there are lots of faster chips than Intel...

Are you out of your mind ? Linux is available for more platforms than any other halfway decent OS I know. Digital Alpha, Sun Sparc, PowerPC, Amiga, Atari, Intel ...

[Quoted] For God's sake get a clue before posting !

>6,7,8,9 I could go on forever...but what's the point. This just ends up
>being a pointless argument, just like Mac fanatics who tell me I should
>"use Apple because it isn't Microsoft".
 

>Yes, I'm a big Linux fan, but I also see it's limitations. Try to work

[Quoted] [Quoted] Are you lying through your teeth or just plain stupid ? A big Linux fan would know that Linux is available for more than half a dozen platforms and not just one.

>in the commercial world on mission-critical systems and you'll soon
>realise the restrictions of Linux. Linux is a great system, but please
>try to be aware of it's limitations as well as it's good points.

[Quoted] Oh pahleese ! Cut the crap. These "commercial world" and "mission-critical" buzzwords are really beginning to bother me. What we do is commercial and mission-critical. What people at www.dejanews.com [Quoted] do is commercial and mission-critical. Unless you have a different understanding of these words.

Atif Khan
aak2_at_ra.msstate.edu Received on Sat Mar 22 1997 - 00:00:00 CET