Re: Humor in Oracle Docs on OTN/Metalink... :-)

On 31 Aug 2001 06:01:52 -0700, mark.powell_at_eds.com (Mark D Powell) wrote:

>"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<toucnfoq3eg10_at_news.demon.nl>...
>> "Han Thomas" <han_at_royal.net> wrote in message
>> news:1ettotog8q8h2oh8on90deaogt207n95g9_at_4ax.com...
>> >
>> > How about this one, one of the many many MANY documents on how to get 9iAS
>> > working:
>> >
>> > " Note: Do not specify TYPICAL as your installation type; if you do
>> > so, the installation will not work. "
>> >
>> > How true. :-) "Typically", Oracle installations don't work. (For the first
>> > week of sleepless nights or so anyway)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Han.
>>
>> If you would have advised to file the Oracle remark as a 'documentation bug'
>> this would have been funny.
>> However, as your second remark usually applies to users just hacking away to
>> install the product, without ever reading any docs, it needs to be
>> considered as hostile and insulting.
>> If you think Oracle products are lacking in quality, call Support (or didn't
>> you buy a support contract) or stick to sqlserver, postgres, or mysql, or
>> any other toys, which are recommended in these groups more than once.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>
>Sybrand, your remarks seem a little unfair to me. Even though I have
>never had a problem getting the Oracle rdbms installation up and
>running by following the manuals, I have encountered problems with
>several Oracle products that would not work even after carefully
>following the documentation. It turned out that the documentation was
>wrong, support knew it was wrong, but the platform specific
>documentation had not been updated to reflect the required changes.
>Support just expected you to call and download the patch or
>instructions.
>
>And remember the early versions of Oracle PC software. The products
>assumed they were the only Oracle software on the PC and if you
>installed a second product they both broke.
>
>No, I think Hon's comments are very fair. Oracle has a very poor
>track record for installations for anything other than the rdbms.
>
>-- Mark D Powell --

I would agree on the doc part, it is not only out-of-date sometimes, it is incomplete and hard to find answers. If you rely only on the doc, you'll probably get yourself into trouble. For me, I will use the combination of: the doc + technet + metalink + news group discussion + Oracle tech support + my own test when I try to find out the 'truth'. technet is pretty much the same as the doc, except that it holds different versions of doc. metalink contains much detailed and up-to-date information, except that some doc is 'classified' and not accessible.

Dino Received on Fri Aug 31 2001 - 16:01:15 CEST