Re: Oracle 8 *Top 10 wishlist*

Michael J Schout wrote:
>
> In article <331836CD.76DA_at_rell.com>, Doug Barnes <dwb_at_rell.com> wrote:
> >> If Oracle doesn't support Linux because it is a "poor mans" operating
> >> system, then why do they make a WindowsNT version??
> >
> >Because MicroSoft is a better known quatity to them (Oracle), they know
> >Microsoft is NOT going away tomorrow and that if a major bug is found
> >they WILL fix it is some resonable timeframe.
>
> Your statement here PROVES that you know nothing about the LINUX community.
> If major bugs are found in Linux, fixes are out usually within HOURS. Compare
> that to NT which can take WEEKS for a bug fix to be released (take the RPC
> services bug in NT 4.0 for example.. ). From my experience the support and
> upkeep of Linux has been far superior to commercial companies.
>
> Your statement also makes it sound like youthink Linux is a fringe OS and that
> it could just dissappear tomorrow. Im sorry my friend, but you are sorely
> mistaken if that is the case. MS might wish that it were true, but the fact
> of the matter is that Linux is everywhere in the commercial marketplace now...
>
> Like it or not, its true...
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> --
> Hal 9000 - "Put down those Windows disks Dave.... Dave? DAVE!!"

Dosen't matter-it's what people are willing to plunk their money down for! We can debate all we want-that dosen't change the facts. I doubt Oracle will port to LINUX any time soon (or ever) and THAT is what this thread is about-not what I think of LINUX (I like it). I just think that as an O/S, UNIX is very fragmented (and always has been) and THAT'S where MicroSoft has an advantage. It certainly dosen't have a better product, just one that looks and feels the same to everyone that uses it! I doubt Bill Gates spend 1 second worrying about LINUX-I sure it's less than a knat in his field of vision. By the way, I don't see much other commercial S/W ported to LINUX either, wonder why that is? Received on Sun Mar 02 1997 - 00:00:00 CET