I wonder what are the requirements for the minimally sized redhat-like distribution (or centos, or fedora) which allow oracle to run without issues? suppose I just don't want do download and install those GBs for the system. what would be minimalistic distribution to run oracle?
and another question: what is the reason for not porting oracle to bsd family systems? are there really serious technical/philosophical differences which make porting not an option? I saw some pages which describe installing oracle on non-supported linuxes (like gentoo): do this, do that and basically you're done and oracle works. but when it comes to bsd the only information was reporting Oracle 8.0.5 and 9i run on freebsd. it looks like tough task to run oracle on bsd. why?
thank you
-- geos
followup-to set for this message to: comp.databases.oracle.server
> I wonder what are the requirements for the minimally sized redhat-like
> distribution (or centos, or fedora) which allow oracle to run without
> issues? suppose I just don't want do download and install those GBs for
> the system. what would be minimalistic distribution to run oracle?
> and another question: what is the reason for not porting oracle to bsd
> family systems? are there really serious technical/philosophical
> differences which make porting not an option? I saw some pages which
> describe installing oracle on non-supported linuxes (like gentoo): do
> this, do that and basically you're done and oracle works. but when it
> comes to bsd the only information was reporting Oracle 8.0.5 and 9i run
> on freebsd. it looks like tough task to run oracle on bsd. why?
> thank you
> --
> geos
> followup-to set for this message to: comp.databases.oracle.server
Google:
minimal gladstone oracle install
Don't know about bsd, 22 years ago I ran O6 on SunOS which was then a
bsd variant. I speculate something about shared memory and
interprocess communication details. It could just be linux was a
religion that got pushed late last century.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:43:14 +0100, geos wrote:
> and another question: what is the reason for not porting oracle to bsd
> family systems?
The reason has something to do with the pictures of dead US presidents. BSD customers will not pay for the maintenance of "Sayonara". Linux, Windows, HP-UX, AIX and zOS customers will.
> Don't know about bsd, 22 years ago I ran O6 on SunOS which was then a
> bsd variant. I speculate something about shared memory and
> interprocess communication details. It could just be linux was a
> religion that got pushed late last century.
> > Don't know about bsd, 22 years ago I ran O6 on SunOS which was then a
> > bsd variant. I speculate something about shared memory and
> > interprocess communication details. It could just be linux was a
> > religion that got pushed late last century.
> thanks,
> geos
Not that it matters, but you could always just download Oracle
Enterprise Linux - there have been some rumors that O is entertaining
the idea of ceasing future support for RedHat and only supporting OEL
- even though OEL is a RedHat variant.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:43:14 +0100, geos wrote:
> I wonder what are the requirements for the minimally sized redhat-like
> distribution (or centos, or fedora) which allow oracle to run without
> issues? suppose I just don't want do download and install those GBs for
> the system. what would be minimalistic distribution to run oracle?
Runs fine on recent Ubuntu.
> and another question: what is the reason for not porting oracle to bsd
> family systems? are there really serious technical/philosophical
> differences which make porting not an option?
More coding, more testing, more support issues - those who run *BSD systems would normally be inclined to run PostgreSQL or MySQL.
> I saw some pages which
> describe installing oracle on non-supported linuxes (like gentoo): do
> this, do that and basically you're done and oracle works. but when it
> comes to bsd the only information was reporting Oracle 8.0.5 and 9i run
> on freebsd. it looks like tough task to run oracle on bsd. why?
You can run a Linux emulation layer which allows you to run any Linux
executable on *BSD - but they cater to different markets - *BSD is
a workhorse server for lots of functionality, but not for Oracle
and the like...
> You can run a Linux emulation layer which allows you to run any Linux
> executable on *BSD - but they cater to different markets - *BSD is
> a workhorse server for lots of functionality, but not for Oracle
> and the like...
I don't understand what you mean by that. How do you differentiate "a workhorse server for lots of functionality" from Linux or from a system which is capable of running Oracle databases?
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:27:02 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> You can run a Linux emulation layer which allows you to run any Linux
>> executable on *BSD - but they cater to different markets - *BSD is a
>> workhorse server for lots of functionality, but not for Oracle and the
>> like...
> I don't understand what you mean by that. How do you differentiate "a
> workhorse server for lots of functionality" from Linux or from a system
> which is capable of running Oracle databases?
The *BSD's are (or would be), of course, more than capable of running Oracle *if* Oracle chose to certify them.
What I meant about "workhorse server" is that the *BSD's have taken
on the role of "invisible workhorse of the internet". Basically
the *BSD's got "screwed" by the licencing disputes in the mid-
to late-90's - Linux had the momentum - Torvalds himself has said
that he wouldn't have bothered to develop Linux if BSD had been
available.
Another example of superior technology being beaten by bad luck...
<eff.off.if.you.think.youre.getting.my.em...@anon.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:27:02 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:
> >> You can run a Linux emulation layer which allows you to run any Linux
> >> executable on *BSD - but they cater to different markets - *BSD is a
> >> workhorse server for lots of functionality, but not for Oracle and the
> >> like...
> > I don't understand what you mean by that. How do you differentiate "a
> > workhorse server for lots of functionality" from Linux or from a system
> > which is capable of running Oracle databases?
> The *BSD's are (or would be), of course, more than capable of running
> Oracle *if* Oracle chose to certify them.
> What I meant about "workhorse server" is that the *BSD's have taken
> on the role of "invisible workhorse of the internet". Basically
> the *BSD's got "screwed" by the licencing disputes in the mid-
> to late-90's - Linux had the momentum - Torvalds himself has said
> that he wouldn't have bothered to develop Linux if BSD had been
> available.
> Another example of superior technology being beaten by bad luck...
(I was looking for statistics on what proportion of servers ran BSD,
having some vague memory that lots of routers did, but once I saw that
suicide note I had to give a hat tip. An argument could be made that
with so much Apple stuff derived from BSD, it's the lightweight
clients that rule the BSD world. Wikipedia has several lists of
things based on BSD.)
> (I was looking for statistics on what proportion of servers ran BSD,
> having some vague memory that lots of routers did, but once I saw that
> suicide note I had to give a hat tip. An argument could be made that
> with so much Apple stuff derived from BSD, it's the lightweight clients
> that rule the BSD world. Wikipedia has several lists of things based on
> BSD.)
> > (I was looking for statistics on what proportion of servers ran BSD,
> > having some vague memory that lots of routers did, but once I saw that
> > suicide note I had to give a hat tip. An argument could be made that
> > with so much Apple stuff derived from BSD, it's the lightweight clients
> > that rule the BSD world. Wikipedia has several lists of things based on
> > BSD.)
