Re: Why no patches available from Oracle's ftp/www server ?

Bruce Pihlamae <bpihlama_at_nla.gov.au> writes:

>Chuck Hamilton wrote:
>...snip
>> That may be, but it'd be more convenient to download the stuff and
>> install it today rather wait for the patch to arrive.
 

>You miss the three very important reasons why Oracle doesn't post
>patches:
 

>1) Oracle does not admit that there are bugs in its software, unless
>pressed.
 

>2) You should pay for the fixes to the bugs that Oracle has installed.
 

>3) You must first encounter the well known, documented, and patched bug
> before Oracle will admit that it exists.
 

>I really hate points 2 and 3, don't you?

 Heck. I hate Oracle. Period. I just dont have any other options on a Solaris X86 box.

I have reported 2 "very well known bugs" that I had the misfortune to find

1. If you hve too much hard disk space available, Oracle will give a "Not enough disk space error", so you have to fill your HD with alot of junk to make Oracle install happy. Talk about a stupid bug.
2. TCP Listener takes up 100% CPU. There is no fix for this.

Both of these were found with an Oracle installation on a Solaris X86 system. Imagine my surprise when an Oracle rep that got back to me via email said that she had not heard of any of these problems before when I had seen several people complain about these exact problems here in this newgroup.

I also have not found anybody who has successfully been able to install the documentation under Solaris X86 2.5.1. I haven't reported this. And probably will not. I mean what kind of a response can I expect from Oracle ?

Its surprising how the database industry differs from the rest of the computer industry. Netscape will pay you money if you can find any bugs in their software. Oracle on the other hand wants you to pay them if you find bugs in their software. What a cruel joke this is.

Atif Khan
aak2_at_ra.msstate.edu Received on Thu Oct 03 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST