NT vrs UNIX was: Re: Oracle 8 *Top 10 wishlist*

Some additional comments:

You have to remember that Linux and FreeBSD, BSDI, etc. versions of UNIX are best for network services servers like mail, dns, web servers etc. The source code for FreeBSD is freely available and very well supported. BSDI is a commercially supported version similar in nature. Cannot comment on Linux.

And it is true ... these OS are fare better supported and stable that that piece of horse pokey Gates is selling. But you have to remember that Microsoft has lots of snake oil men out running around selling dog dirt.

As far as ORACLE on NT : NT is a product that enjoys great paperware at the hands of the MS printing press ... it still has a long way to go. I would not run my real databases on it if my life depended on it. The ISV backup products are not mature yet. Neither is the OS. Sure it has a common interface, run setup, its up and running like a knife through butter. It also melts as quickly as butter when some vendors other product stomps all over you ddl's behind you back.

Toay UNIX is the only rock solid industrial strength OS for critial midrange database servers. I might consider deploying NT as a departmental application server for LAN based applications. Its great for that. Basically a Lan Manager hairball excellorator on steroids. Also might not be a bad development platform. ORACLE enterprise server can be put on a 4XP6 NT platform cheaper that a UNIX server. The WEB tools also appear to be maturing quickly under NT. Given time it will mature.

Doug Barnes wrote:
>
> 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