Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux distribution: Red Hat
Ramon F Herrera
"One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
base.
In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief
corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
Linux distribution — his rival’s code base."
[...]
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393
-RFH
Mark D Powell
Or maybe this is a way of saying Oracle bit-off (pun) more than it
chew. One way to improve relations with Red Hat is to give them
credit for the OS and to provide strong support for Oracle on Linux
including the Linux pieces for a fee.
IMHO -- Mark D Powell --
Ramon F Herrera
Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
OS.
- One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
- One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
- One Solaris
- One AIX
- One HP-UX
- One Windows
and, last but not least:
- One Linux distribution
Why should Linux be different?
-Ramon
Roy Schestowitz
Oracle just wants to freeload GNU/Linux _in its entirety_. When will it
actually give something back? Oh, that's right. Ellison's vocabulary is
missing the word "give". No wonder Olson ditched the company.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Previously-unsurpassed exposure makes carnation-faced men
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 24.4%us, 3.6%sy, 1.0%ni, 66.6%id, 4.1%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
Michael Schmarck
Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
distributions are out there?
Michael
Rainer Duffner
> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
> distributions are out there?
Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)
Rainer
yossarian
> Why should Linux be different?
Because different Linux distributions are different O/S?
Y.
Michael Schmarck
Yes, wasn't it? :)
But even with Solaris it makes sense that Oracle only supports Solaris.
After all, only Solaris 10 (or 11, when it comes out) is the /official/
Solaris.
That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
official Linux there is.
Michael
Linonut
> Oracle just wants to freeload GNU/Linux _in its entirety_. When will it
> actually give something back? Oh, that's right. Ellison's vocabulary is
> missing the word "give".
Of course! The personal competition between Gates and Ellison over who
was wealthiest has been written in a number of articles and books.
Here's an example of their dynamic, at least as it stood a decade ago:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/1216ellgates.html
Such digs on Gates are now a well-rehearsed Ellison soliloquy. In
keynote speeches, informal gatherings and private interviews, the
Oracle chief slips easily into long rants on what he sees as Gates'
quest to dominate everything Microsoft touches. One favorite Ellison
refrain is that Gates wants a world of "Microsoft English."
. . .
Disagreeing with a point Ellison made, Gates concluded that he would
"have to think about that," and abruptly hung up the phone. Over six
hours later, Gates called back and said he ultimately agreed with
Ellison and "continued the conversation as if nothing had even
happened," Ellison said, expressing his disbelief.
That Gates should spend half a day mulling over a minor point was a
"revelation" to Ellison, who realized that his erstwhile friend is
"a very unusual person." Moreover, Gates is "the most aggressive,
the most single-minded...the most ambitious person I have ever met
in my life," said Ellison, whose own personal fortune stands at
about $6 billion.
Again, a question: More ambitious than even Larry Ellison?
"I have hobbies. I do all sorts of ridiculous things," outside of
work, countered Ellison. Gates, whose "entire life is Microsoft"
would never consider hobbies enjoyed by Ellison, such as sailboat
racing and "reading books," said Ellison, the owner of a Machetti
Italian jet fighter and the richest citizen of "The Golden State."
. . .
Ellison laughed when asked if he plays Churchill to Gates' Fuhrer in
his own duel over who will dominate the computer industry.
--
Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day. Much
of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be funny if
it weren't so irritating.
-- Bill Gates, "Why I Hate Spam" in Microsoft PressPass (2003)
Roy Schestowitz
Men with a small penis want big yachts.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 24.4%us, 3.6%sy, 1.0%ni, 66.5%id, 4.2%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
Ezekiel
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:3582728.s...@schestowitz.com...
> ____/ Ramon F Herrera on Thursday 08 May 2008 01:32 : \____
>
>>
>> Red Hat - and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
>> base.
>>
>> In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle's chief
>> corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
>> a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393
>
> Oracle just wants to freeload GNU/Linux _in its entirety_. When will it
> actually give something back? Oh, that's right. Ellison's vocabulary is
> missing the word "give". No wonder Olson ditched the company.
So let's make sure we all understand this. Larry Ellison is a
multi-billionaire who founded and runs one of the largest software companies
in the world. He meets with and is friends with industry leaders and
powerful and influencial people.
You are a child that posts lies and spam from your dorm room 24 hours a day,
7 days a week. You've never actually had a job and have to leach off of
someone elses internet connection to post your crap.
Yet a unemployed moron like you thinks that you know more about the industry
than Larry Ellison.
Roy Schestowitz - An idiot amongst morons.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ezekiel
I'm sure that things like the penis size of men is something that Roy
Schestowitz has a personal interest in.
Richard B. Gilbert
Men with a small penis are obsessed with penis size!
;-)
Ramon F Herrera
wrote:
There are many Windows versions/distributions, you know that.
Linux may be different in a sense, but that doesn't mean that Oracle
should support multiple distributions (*). That would be simply
insane.
I just hacked a new distro, it is called "Ramonux", it contains lots
of spiffy kernel innovations. Should I call Oracle to demand that they
support it?
Anyone who can't/won't spring several hundred dollars for the official
supported distribution by Oracle (RedHat Enterprise Edition) should
be banished from using Oracle.
-Ramon
(*) and by "multiple" I mean the strict: "more than one".
Ivan Marsh
> "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution - Red
> Hat - and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code base.
Thus showing that the Oracle chief architect in question doesn't
understand Linux at all.
Linux is NOT a PC operating system.
How the hell am I supposed to run RedHat embedded on a micro-controller?
I love when "experts" are idiots.
--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"
Ramon F Herrera
wrote:
You are obviously a Linux desktop user and have no idea about
administering
corporate servers.
Oracle never said that RedHat is the only "official Linux". Oracle
only runs on "Enterprise Linux" -a category very different from
"Linux".
What Oracle wants to say is:
(1) Oracle is in the server business
(2) Oracle db only runs on "Enterprise Linux"
(3) Our official enterprise Linux is RedHat
The mistake many of you (I have really clarified this more often
that I can count) are making is trying to be at level (3) when
you don't even reach level (1).
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 17:27:33 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> > "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution - Red
> > Hat - and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code base.
>
> Thus showing that the Oracle chief architect in question doesn't
> understand Linux at all.
He doesn't have to understand it. He has chosen not to understand it.
Oracle Corporation is in the:
"Corporate Server Business".
The Oracle DB and most other apps do not run on "Linux". They run on
an "Enterprise Linux".
There is a huge difference.
The fact that you can hack your iPhone and run some Linux derivative
on it is inconsequential to Oracle.
-Ramon
joel garry
Because it's a mess the way things are done now. Oracle should put
together a distribution that works out of the box.
Part of the problem with linux/oracle is it still requires a lot of
configuration that can be screwed up. Most of this could be easily
fixed with simple automatic, text-driven (so easily maintainable when
there are new possibilities) scripts. I say, "fork Redhat. And it's
mama, too."
Not that I use it, I gave up on linux years ago, after being quite the
supporter. Funny, it has evolved, but I haven't.
Ten years ago I was predicting shrink-wrapped oracle/linux apps within
a couple of years. I was wrong.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.sgi.admin/browse_thread/thread/d4c1f7c0fe672a4/fa920d2ada0ef8fa?lnk=st&q=#fa920d2ada0ef8fa
I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
running on toy hardware, and RAC on it is a ridiculous complication
that has the effect of making poor hardware less reliable. Did I say
that out loud?
And in your other post where you said "Oracle servers are dedicated,
high performance, expensive computers inside a server room. If you
want to keep your cooking recipes in a database, use something else."
What do you make of XE? I just yesterday implemented one as a remote
production server, so I can push data out without worrying about lots
of things like strange places accessing my dedicated etc. computer
inside a server room. And when you work for a pharmaceutical
manufacturer, cooking recipes are more critical than you might think.
Please don't crosspost between cdo.server and cdo.misc.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"Did you really think it would be that easy??"
Ramon F Herrera
> I love when "experts" are idiots.
And I love it when idiots are "experts". :-)
(sorry, it was too easy)
Now seriously: A computer running Oracle is by definition a dedicated
server. It needs a special kernel, among other things. You shouldn't
run anything else on it.
-Ramon
Ivan Marsh
Uh... Lucent/Avaya phone switches run Linux embedded on many of their
components.
Since I'm reading this in a Sun group... RedHat does not run on a Sparc
station... but other distros do.
RedHat does not run on PPC... but other distros do.
This has nothing to do with a hack of an insignificant toy.
Ivan Marsh
> On May 8, 12:39 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I love when "experts" are idiots.
>
> And I love it when idiots are "experts". :-)
>
> (sorry, it was too easy)
Though completely meaningless.
> Now seriously: A computer running Oracle is by definition a dedicated
> server. It needs a special kernel, among other things. You shouldn't run
> anything else on it.
Proving further that the Oracle "expert" doesn't know what he's talking
about.
chrisv
>I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
>running on toy hardware,
Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
Idiot.
Ramon F Herrera
Just for the sake of argument...
Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.
They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.
They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization
(RedHat, HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99%
of distros out.
I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.
-Ramon
Ivan Marsh
> On May 8, 1:07 pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> joel garry wrote:
>> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
>> >running on toy hardware,
>>
>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
>> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> Just for the sake of argument...
>
> Countless corporations and research organizations do not use Linux.
>
> They use Enterprise Linux. Big difference.
>
> They use a Linux which is supported by a credible organization (RedHat,
> HP, IBM, Oracle and a *few* more). That leaves more than 99% of distros
> out.
My company is 24th in the world in it's industry (which is pretty damn
good considering we're a 10th the size of our competition)... We run
BlueHat, Fedora and OpenSuse... I've never needed the support of the
distribution manufacturer.
> I am talking about "corporate/enterprise servers" strictly. I (and
> Oracle) couldn't care less about the desktop.
...or any of the myriad other things Linux is used for in the world
apparently.
Linux is NOT a PC operating system.
--
Ramon F Herrera
For the purposes of this thread, I don't.
If you want to discuss desktop, you are invited to join another thread
of yours truly:
"Apple should Acquire Sun"
in the Solaris NG.
BTW: There are at least two widely used OSS packages in which yours
truly is mentioned in the contributors and thanks sections.
> Linux is NOT a PC operating system.
...and Oracle is not a PC product or company.
-RFH
Ivan Marsh
...at what point was I talking about desktop? If anything I've been
talking about anything but.
> BTW: There are at least two widely used OSS packages in which yours
> truly is mentioned in the contributors and thanks sections.
>
>> Linux is NOT a PC operating system.
>
> ...and Oracle is not a PC product or company.
...and Oracle choosing a distro that they will support is perfectly
acceptable... despite the fact that even they use a kernel branched off of
RedHat. For that to get mixed up in the "there should only be one Linux
disto" argument, as this has, is ignorant.
Cydrome Leader
google does run toy hardware. I've seen more than enough of it at
datacenters.
joel garry
Well, I may be an idiot, but what does it say that even more
corporations use Windows? (Too avoid confusion: I'm biased against
Windows and for unix. A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me. Success in the
marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
converse.
We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
386's worked. Getting from there to a professional OS? I say it is
arguable. Any time someone can point out something major where
Windows works better, first of all... (I have hardware detection and
support in mind as I write this, certainly the main reason I'm no
longer using linux, specifically redhat, I have 3 dozen versions of
different linux in shelfware, at least.).
Now as far as linux/Oracle, you need to address concerns like these:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_thread/thread/62e0ef3830b24ce4/a6ce2fc3536fe0b4?lnk=st&q=#a6ce2fc3536fe0b4
You see, I'm a _sophisticated_ idiot.
I think the Oracle stand (referenced by the OP) of a single linux is
just plain wrong, even limiting to the db sphere there's wildly
different needs and usages.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
So, do people die if your software doesn't work right?
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2008/05/02/5448331-sun.php
Ivan Marsh
> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> joel garry wrote:
>> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
>> >running on toy hardware,
>>
>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
>> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
That explains more than anyone ever need know.
Michael Schmarck
> On May 8, 6:22 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
> wrote:
>> Rainer Duffner <rai...@ultra-secure.de> wrote:
>> > Michael Schmarck schrieb:
>>
>> >> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
>> >> distributions are out there?
>>
>> > Cute to leave out "Solaris" in the above list ;-)
>>
>> Yes, wasn't it? :)
>>
>> But even with Solaris it makes sense that Oracle only supports Solaris.
>> After all, only Solaris 10 (or 11, when it comes out) is the /official/
>> Solaris.
>>
>> That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
>> official Linux there is.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
>> That's still not comparable to Linux - RHEL is certainly not the only
>> official Linux there is.
>
> You are obviously a Linux desktop user and have no idea about
> administering
> corporate servers.
Not correct.
> Oracle never said that RedHat is the only "official Linux". Oracle
> only runs on "Enterprise Linux" -a category very different from
> "Linux".
All right. So? There are also other Enterprise Linux versions out
there - eg. SLES. And as far as stability is concerned, even Debian
could be well suited. Or Ubuntu LTS, which is guaranteed to be
supported (and thus stable) for 3 years.
>
> What Oracle wants to say is:
>
> (1) Oracle is in the server business
> (2) Oracle db only runs on "Enterprise Linux"
> (3) Our official enterprise Linux is RedHat
>
> The mistake many of you (I have really clarified this more often
> that I can count)
I have never heard of you.
> are making is trying to be at level (3) when
> you don't even reach level (1).
Whatever you mean.
Michael Schmarck
--
A snake lurks in the grass.
-- Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil)
Michael Schmarck
> On May 8, 1:49 am, Michael Schmarck <usenet-mich...@schmarck.cn>
> wrote:
>> Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Oracle supports -as they should- exactly ONE distribution for every
>> > OS.
>>
>> > - One Macintosh distribution (if they ever supported the Mac)
>> > - One IBM mainframe distribution (MVS)
>> > - One Solaris
>> > - One AIX
>> > - One HP-UX
>> > - One Windows
>>
>> > and, last but not least:
>>
>> > - One Linux distribution
>>
>> > Why should Linux be different?
>>
>> Because Linux is different? How many Windows, HP-UX, AIX
>> distributions are out there?
>>
>> Michael
>
> There are many Windows versions/distributions, you know that.
Sure. But it's, more or less, a stable environment ("stable" in the
sense that it doesn't change much - obviously not in the sense, that
it runs well).
> Linux may be different in a sense, but that doesn't mean that Oracle
> should support multiple distributions (*).
Wrong. Oracle should do exactly that.
> That would be simply
> insane.
No. It would make a lot of sense.
> I just hacked a new distro, it is called "Ramonux", it contains lots
> of spiffy kernel innovations. Should I call Oracle to demand that they
> support it?
If it's as widely used as, let's say, Ubuntu or Debian: Yes, why not?
> Anyone who can't/won't spring several hundred dollars for the official
> supported distribution by Oracle (RedHat Enterprise Edition) should
> be banished from using Oracle.
Why just RHEL? Why not (also) SLES? What's wrong about Debian or
Ubuntu LTS?
It's not about being able to shell out a few hundred bucks. It's
rather, that Oracle should not try to force what Linux version is
okay to use, if there's no good reason (and there isn't).
> (*) and by "multiple" I mean the strict: "more than one".
Understood.
Michael Schmarck
--
I feel sorry for your brain... all alone in that great big head...
joel garry
And they screw things up, too. I've personally seen: usenet posts
take 18 hours to get posted, and interrupted transactions (I'm talking
about dollars, not usenet here) get committed rather than rolling
back. And I've heard about a lot more, but I don't want to send this
thread off on that tangent (you can, ahem, google plenty of stuff).
I think google is a real bad example of proving that cheapo hardware
is in general a good thing. They have craploads of capital to throw
at it, which doesn't imply efficiency at all. Whether it actually
will work for google over the long run remains to be seen, but there
is nothing to show that it is appropriate for others. Especially the
part about having so much redundant hardware they have to build a
special building with the cooling requirements of an old-style nuclear
plant. And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
results.
In the datacenters I've seen, which range from medium sized companies
to large gummint, the Intel commodity crap comes and goes, Windows is
forever being rebooted, and the real unices only go down for some dumb-
ass yanking the plug when they're not supposed to (or the rare rman
job fragmenting I/O buffers and... oops, didn't mean to say that one
out loud, either).
And I've seen a few places with linux/Oracle/RAC that just seem to
have expectations way out in left field. Are they stupid or have they
been oversold?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.csoonline.com/article/348317/What_a_Botnet_Looks_Like
bdbafh
Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
and are not supported.
Or would you rather just spew forth an uninformed opinion?
-bdbafh
The Ghost In The Machine
<joel-...@home.com>
wrote
on Thu, 8 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
<93714048-dfc9-4b1d...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> joel garry wrote:
>> >I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
>> >running on toy hardware,
>>
>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations use
>> and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> Well, I may be an idiot, but what does it say that even more
> corporations use Windows? (Too avoid confusion: I'm biased against
> Windows and for unix. A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
> It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.
Define "wrong". Both solutions work, with a cost.
That cost has multiple units:
[1] initial licensing/monetary outlay for OS and apps relevant to
the initial problem
[2] reliability/downtime
[3] IT support staff effort (man-days per machine per year, perhaps)
[4] IT training costs (including procedure development)
[5] staff training costs
[6] additional hardware and software not related to [1] in order
to keep the entire system running/responsive/virus-free/sane
[7] palatability to upper management; for example, they might not
even look at [non-]Microsoft or [non-]Oracle solutions, terminating
any proposals outside of their worldview with not quite extreme
prejudice.
> Success in the
> marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
> converse.
>
> We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
> 386's worked. Getting from there to a professional OS? I say it is
> arguable. Any time someone can point out something major where
> Windows works better, first of all...
[1] Generating profit for Microsoft.
[2] Threads, maybe.
[3] Might be easier to sell to large corporations; Dell
and Microsoft in particular are advertising Microsoft
System Center.
> (I have hardware detection and
> support in mind as I write this, certainly the main reason I'm no
> longer using linux, specifically redhat, I have 3 dozen versions of
> different linux in shelfware, at least.).
>
> Now as far as linux/Oracle, you need to address concerns like these:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_thread/thread/62e0ef3830b24ce4/a6ce2fc3536fe0b4?lnk=st&q=#a6ce2fc3536fe0b4
>
> You see, I'm a _sophisticated_ idiot.
>
> I think the Oracle stand (referenced by the OP) of a single linux is
> just plain wrong, even limiting to the db sphere there's wildly
> different needs and usages.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> So, do people die if your software doesn't work right?
> http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2008/05/02/5448331-sun.php
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
joel garry
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joel garry
> <joel-ga...@home.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 8 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Very well said. I'm using "wrong" here in the sense that management
decisions vary from some objective truth. If many organizations have
a high variance, they may quite well all be wrong. It is also
possible for technically wrong decisions (ie, choosing an inferior
operating system and/or database with a semi-bogus app, that can still
be made to work in the business) to be managerially correct, I'm sure
we've all seen versions of that, whether or not we want to admit it.
>
> > Success in the
> > marketplace does not mean technical superiority, and often means the
> > converse.
>
> > We all ought to know the history - some smart guy wanted to know how
> > 386's worked. Getting from there to a professional OS? I say it is
> > arguable. Any time someone can point out something major where
> > Windows works better, first of all...
>
> [1] Generating profit for Microsoft.
> [2] Threads, maybe.
> [3] Might be easier to sell to large corporations; Dell
> and Microsoft in particular are advertising Microsoft
> System Center.
>
And Oracle pushing software as a service. Feh.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"... keynote gloriously isolated from reality..."
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/05/08/oracle_bea_layoffs/
joel garry
:-)
But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
advocacy issues?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
The Boss
> On May 8, 1:40 pm, Ivan Marsh <ivanma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:34:30 -0700, joel garry wrote:
>>> On May 8, 10:07 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> joel garry wrote:
>>>>> I've come to the opinion that linux as sold/supported is a toy OS
>>>>> running on toy hardware,
>>
>>>> Yeah, that's why countless corporations and research organizations
>>>> use and depend on it. Tell google that Linux is a "toy OS".
>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>
>>> A decade ago I was very pro-linux in cola.).
>>
>> That explains more than anyone ever need know.
>>
>
> :-)
>
> But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
> advocacy issues?
>
No one is forcing you to use Intel hardware to run Linux ...
--
Jeroen
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: I think google (...snip...)
: ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
: results.
Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
That would be a _bad_ thing.
Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. If a result page
doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible
algorithm.
Richard B. Gilbert
This may be true for Linux based systems but is not, AFAIK, the case for
O/S's like OpenVMS, or Solaris. Yes, you do have set some memory
allocation parameters to ensure that Oracle gets enough memory to run
efficiently but that's not quite the same as a special kernel. For best
performance, it helps to put Oracle on one machine and your
application(s) on another but you certainly can run your application on
the same machine; just be sure the machine has at least two CPU's and
LOTS of RAM! It's probably a lot cheaper to run your applications on a
second machine rather than beefing up one to do it all; Oracle charges
for licenses based on the number of CPU's and they charge all the
traffic will bear!!
Michael Schmarck
> Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
> and are not supported.
Care to provide a direct link?
> Or would you rather just spew forth an uninformed opinion?
I was responding to Ramon, who said that it would be good for Oracle
to support only one Linux distribution.
Michael
bugbear
> "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
> Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
> base.
Which is a perfectly sensible viewpoint from
a *purely Oracle* perspective, but bloody nonsense
from the viewpoint of various other vendors using
Linux in PVR's, Mobile phones, PDAs, routers,
sound studio software, all of which have different
requirments.
BugBear
0xdeadabe
<rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Linonut on Thursday 08 May 2008 13:00 : \____
>>
>>> * Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> Oracle just wants to freeload GNU/Linux _in its entirety_. When will it
>>>> actually give something back? Oh, that's right. Ellison's vocabulary is
>>>> missing the word "give".
>>> Of course! The personal competition between Gates and Ellison over who
>>> was wealthiest has been written in a number of articles and books.
>>>
>>> Here's an example of their dynamic, at least as it stood a decade ago:
>>>
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/1216ellgates.html
>>>
>>> Such digs on Gates are now a well-rehearsed Ellison soliloquy. In
>>> keynote speeches, informal gatherings and private interviews, the
>>> Oracle chief slips easily into long rants on what he sees as Gates'
>>> quest to dominate everything Microsoft touches. One favorite Ellison
>>> refrain is that Gates wants a world of "Microsoft English."
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> Disagreeing with a point Ellison made, Gates concluded that he would
>>> "have to think about that," and abruptly hung up the phone. Over six
>>> hours later, Gates called back and said he ultimately agreed with
>>> Ellison and "continued the conversation as if nothing had even
>>> happened," Ellison said, expressing his disbelief.
>>>
>>> That Gates should spend half a day mulling over a minor point was a
>>> "revelation" to Ellison, who realized that his erstwhile friend is
>>> "a very unusual person." Moreover, Gates is "the most aggressive,
>>> the most single-minded...the most ambitious person I have ever met
>>> in my life," said Ellison, whose own personal fortune stands at
>>> about $6 billion.
>>>
>>> Again, a question: More ambitious than even Larry Ellison?
>>>
>>> "I have hobbies. I do all sorts of ridiculous things," outside of
>>> work, countered Ellison. Gates, whose "entire life is Microsoft"
>>> would never consider hobbies enjoyed by Ellison, such as sailboat
>>> racing and "reading books," said Ellison, the owner of a Machetti
>>> Italian jet fighter and the richest citizen of "The Golden State."
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> Ellison laughed when asked if he plays Churchill to Gates' Fuhrer in
>>> his own duel over who will dominate the computer industry.
>>
>> Men with a small penis want big yachts.
>>
>
>Men with a small penis are obsessed with penis size!
>;-)
That sounds like youz.
<giggle>
chrisv
>It says that countless corporations are wrong, to me.
It's not that simple, of course.
Moshe Goldfarb
> "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution —
> Red Hat — and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
> base.
>
> In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle’s chief
> corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
> a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
> Linux distribution — his rival’s code base."
>
> [...]
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393
>
> -RFH
So when does the *boycott Oracle* website go up?
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Moshe Goldfarb
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:7444212.h...@schestowitz.com...
> I'm sure that things like the penis size of men is something that Roy
> Schestowitz has a personal interest in.
Evidently he does....
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/869ff5bd2f7d22f9
Ramon F Herrera
wrote:
I am all for giving exact and consistent results every time...
If we lived in a constant, immovable, static world that is!
Just freeze the clock, and the Google results will be completely
consistent...
Last time I saw a search engine with consistent results was Altavista.
It had a piece of information gathering software (called "scooter")
which took a month to traverse the www. Google results are almost real-
time.
-RFH
Ramon F Herrera
wrote:
> bdbafh <bdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Go check under "Certify" on Metalink.oracle.com for what distros are
> > and are not supported.
>
> Care to provide a direct link?
>
He cannot. That information is classified. :-)
Now seriously: you have to be an Oracle Metalink subscriber to see the
certification matrix.
Last time I checked, Oracle supports 3 distribuitions, all of them in
the "Enterprise" category.
- RHEL
- Enterprise SuSE
- Asia Linux
Oracle works directly with the folks responsible for the above
distributions. The original one was RedHat. They both (Oracle + RH)
opened a development lab to make sure that the software ran properly
on Linux. Oracle gave every byte of code -as required- back to the
community.
The point is that when they discover a bug or problem, Oracle can pick
up a phone, make *three* phone calls and yell: "Fix this now!".
It turns out that they would like to make a *single* phone call, with
the cost savings, wall street pressures and all.
Ergo, the RH special status.
-Ramon
Chris Mattern
>
> "One Oracle exec said there should be only one Linux distribution ?
> Red Hat ? and claimed there will be no fragmentation of that code
> base.
>
> In an interview with the Linux Foundation recently, Oracle?s chief
> corporate architect said Oracle Unbreakable Linux is not a product but
> a support program and he believes that there ought to be only one
>
> [...]
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2393
>
> -RFH
>
They can have my Debian when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
--
Christopher Mattern
NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities
Chris Mattern
In that case, all I can say is that most corporations desperately
need to make trip to the toy store.
hpuxrac
snip
> But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
> advocacy issues?
I think I should consider changing my name from hpuxrac to
oracle_on_intel.
We are in the midst of a swapout of running oracle on hpux over to 5.1
OEL running on intel xeon quad core.
Ran a whole bunch of custom testing on different hardware ranging from
Sun's latest 8 core systems over to AMD and Itanium and Intel. Well
the intel quad core performance 64 bit running OEL 5.1 is pretty
remarkable.
Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks"
line?
Tim Smith
Chris Mattern <sys...@sumire.gwu.edu> wrote:
> > google does run toy hardware. I've seen more than enough of it at
> > datacenters.
>
> In that case, all I can say is that most corporations desperately
> need to make trip to the toy store.
Most corporations don't have an architecture that would benefit from
that. Most of Google's is distributed, and so if a cheap server goes
down, it is no big deal--it just puts a little more work on dozens of
other servers until the dead server gets replaced.
--
--Tim Smith
Ramon F Herrera
I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.
-Ramon
hpuxrac
snip
> > > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > > fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
> > > advocacy issues?
snip
> > Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks" line?
>
> I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
> coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.
Hard to guess when Joel makes such a broad statement. ... he seems to
be combining some thought about the size of the linux kernel and
ancillary software getting larger combined with a shot against intel.
I did my best at my place to keep amd in the race but at the time of
the purchase decision they just weren't a factor at that time. Things
change and continue to change ... unless one gives a specific set of
benchmark results at a point in time this just sounds "not so
relevant" imho.
joel garry
> On May 9, 7:14 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > > But still, I'm not the only one who was excited about it and then
> > > > disillusioned as it bloated, I'm not the only one who thinks Intel
> > > > hardware sucks, and I'm not the only one who thinks there should be a
> > > > fork specifically for db needs. Do you not think these are legitimate
> > > > advocacy issues?
>
> snip
>
> > > Do you have something specific to backup the "Intel hardware sucks" line?
>
> > I am pretty sure he must be referring to x86. His arguments sound like
> > coming from the old RISC vs. CISC dichotomy era, which is long gone.
>
> Hard to guess when Joel makes such a broad statement. ... he seems to
> be combining some thought about the size of the linux kernel and
> ancillary software getting larger combined with a shot against intel.
Pretty accurate.
>
> I did my best at my place to keep amd in the race but at the time of
> the purchase decision they just weren't a factor at that time. Things
> change and continue to change ... unless one gives a specific set of
> benchmark results at a point in time this just sounds "not so
> relevant" imho.
Ramon got it right. It's not long gone for me, as I'm currently
transitioning from risc to Itanium on hp-ux (not my decision, and the
only testing is management half-listening to salespeople then doing
what is cheapest. They are going heavily into Xeon for the non-Oracle
stuff, and using vmware to run multiple XP clients on mission critical
operations. Random lockups, "unable to load profile" and some bizarro
registry issues are the result.). I do respect your actual testing,
though, and secretly hope I'm wrong.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
That darn Moscone center: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/tech/20080509-1420-ca-techconferencevirus.html
joel garry
I can either work on what is given, or not. The person who makes
those decisions has certain constraints. Oddly enough, he asked me
whether he should use suse or redhat for a telephony app not long
after I posted in this thread last week. He had some disks from about
5 years ago... I would like to encourage him to go in the direction of
linux, actually, but that might be an indicator of how long it takes
for me to say something and for it to become his idea...
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Never use an online handle that will make you look obsolete when the
technology moves on.
joel garry
wrote:
Well, I'm a db geek, and for me an algorithm that doesn't reduce to
correct results when given enough specificity is a bad, bad algorithm.
But even worse is an actual commercial transaction that doesn't follow
the basic rules of transactions. Been there, done that, got the
credit card bill, got the fraud investigation going.
Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Golden Shield Project: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/chinese-firewall
Linonut
> Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
> have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
> incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
> Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.
Check your LANG variable. <grin>
--
I'm a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound
effects in terms of how people can learn from each other, and how they can
achieve the kind of freedoms that they're interested in.
-- Bill Gates
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: On May 8, 4:38=A0pm, yf...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Malcolm Dew-Jones)
: wrote:
: > joel garry (joel-ga...@home.com) wrote:
: >
: > : I think google (...snip...)
: > : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
: > : results.
: >
: > Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
: >
: > That would be a _bad_ thing.
: >
: > Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
: ge
: > doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible=
: > algorithm.
: Well, I'm a db geek, and for me an algorithm that doesn't reduce to
: correct results when given enough specificity is a bad, bad algorithm.
There are no "correct results" in a heuristic search where they're trying
to guess what some anonymous user really wants. If you make the same
query twice, does that mean you found the first search useful and want to
see the results again, or does it mean the first set of results was
useless and you're hoping they'll find something else to tell you about?
(Just like repeating the same question to a person when they don't answer
it correctly the first time.)
: But even worse is an actual commercial transaction that doesn't follow
: the basic rules of transactions. Been there, done that, got the
: credit card bill, got the fraud investigation going.
I don't see that the search part of a google search is in anyway a
"commercial transaction".
: Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
: have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
: incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
: Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.
That may all be true, but there is still no reason why a search from a
user would always show the same advertising. After all, if you followed
the ad-link then you don't need to see it again, and if you didn't follow
the ad-link then "obviously" you aren't interested in that ad. Either way
it implies that the same ads should _not_ be consistently shown.
Whether you can audit when your ads are shown for billing purposes is a
very valid concern, but it has no relation to whether the search results,
including the ads, should be shown consistently or not.
joel garry
Did I say it was?
>
> : Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising. They
> : have no accountability at all for it. Great for them, evil
> : incarnate. And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
> : Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.
>
> That may all be true, but there is still no reason why a search from a
> user would always show the same advertising. After all, if you followed
> the ad-link then you don't need to see it again, and if you didn't follow
> the ad-link then "obviously" you aren't interested in that ad. Either way
> it implies that the same ads should _not_ be consistently shown.
I don't care about the advertising (except when it displays work-
inappropriate stuff at work, makes monitored browsing logs look like
I'm surfing somewhere I'm not, or is otherwise entertaining). I
almost never follow those links, normally ignoring them completely.
>
> Whether you can audit when your ads are shown for billing purposes is a
> very valid concern, but it has no relation to whether the search results,
> including the ads, should be shown consistently or not.
Yes, that is extremely valid for people who advertise and pay money.
I don't say ads should be consistent. I do say search results on
narrow criteria should be consistent. And I will consistently
maintain that someone who is not an advertising customer or any other
kind of customer of google besides plain browsing and google groups
SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR CREDIT CARD BILLED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER DAY
BY GOOGLE!!! Can I make it any more plain?
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your
mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were
probably really drunk... Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't
give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer... " -
coolrunnings BBS.