Reports Background engine failures
Jerry Alan Braga
periodaclly we get the reports background engine failures. The event view
has this
Faulting application RWRBE60.EXE, version 3.0.0.0, faulting module
UTL60.DLL, version 6.0.8.25, fault address 0x000015fc.
Faulting application RWRBE60.EXE, version 3.0.0.0, faulting module
winspool.drv, version 5.2.3790.3959, fault address 0x0000afed.
any ideas ?
sybr...@gmail.com
Question: has Forms 6i ever been certified against Win 2003?
When was Forms 6i released? When Win2003?
When was Forms 6i desupported?
So why do you ask?
YOYO!!!!
--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA
Jerry Alan Braga
but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server support for forms
(BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with that
terrible jinitiator stuff and others.
I was just wondering if anyone has seend this and can assist in any way.
By the way 6i was supported for WinXP and Win2003 share over 90% of the same
binaries so you take a guess.
<sybr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fqefa3l7tb8pscj1n...@4ax.com...
sybr...@hccnet.nl
<jerry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server support for forms
>(BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
>We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with that
>terrible jinitiator stuff and others.
That was not a mistake. The world moves on. Mickeysoft doesn't support
client/server anymore, doesn't it?
Please realise how terrible old Forms 6i is, and please realise Oracle
has many other development tools.
Why stay in the dark and stick to client/server?
Preston
Because things in the 'real world' often don't match your view of how
things should work. E.g. we sell a suite of applications which include
a couple of hundred 6i reports. Upgrading to Reports 10g would mean
we'd have to charge our clients more to cover the increased licensing
costs of the reports elements of application server, with no obvious
benefit to themselves.
We'd also have to visit every single one of our clients to install
application server (which would cost us a small fortune) as most of
them don't even have an IT department, never mind anyone familiar with
Oracle. Some of them would also need to buy new servers. Then of course
we'd need to change our application as it currently calls the reports
executable to run the reports, and change all the reports themselves.
You can call that 'staying in the dark' if you like - we call it the
reality of a small software house competing in a very competitive
market. The extra licensing costs & complexity of Reports 10 makes it a
non-starter for us & our clients, hence we'll be sticking with 6i until
we have time to implement a (non-Oracle) alternative.
--
Preston.
DA Morgan
> sybr...@hccnet.nl wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:25:50 GMT, "Jerry Alan Braga"
>> <jerry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server support
>>> for forms (BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
>>> We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with
>>> that terrible jinitiator stuff and others.
>> That was not a mistake. The world moves on. Mickeysoft doesn't support
>> client/server anymore, doesn't it?
>> Please realise how terrible old Forms 6i is, and please realise Oracle
>> has many other development tools.
>> Why stay in the dark and stick to client/server?
>
> Because things in the 'real world' often don't match your view of how
> things should work. E.g. we sell a suite of applications which include
> a couple of hundred 6i reports. Upgrading to Reports 10g would mean
> we'd have to charge our clients more to cover the increased licensing
> costs of the reports elements of application server, with no obvious
> benefit to themselves.
It would also mean your clients would be using supported technology.
Is that a benefit?
It would mean they could meet their legal requirements with respect
to auditing and compliance. Is that a benefit?
Given that Oracle has made clear, for years, its intention what you
are really saying is that your firm chose to ignore Oracle and the
needs of its customers making so appropriate this quote from Shakespeare:
"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
petar"
You being the engineer in this case. <g>
If you don't do it now when do you plan to do it? With version 11? 12?
20? You should have been making this investment on an on-going basis.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Preston
> Preston wrote:
> > sybr...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:25:50 GMT, "Jerry Alan Braga"
> >><jerry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server
> > > > support for forms (BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
> > > > We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with
> > > > that terrible jinitiator stuff and others.
> > > That was not a mistake. The world moves on. Mickeysoft doesn't
> > > support client/server anymore, doesn't it?
> > > Please realise how terrible old Forms 6i is, and please realise
> > > Oracle has many other development tools. Why stay in the dark
> > > and stick to client/server?
> >
> > Because things in the 'real world' often don't match your view of
> > how things should work. E.g. we sell a suite of applications which
> > include a couple of hundred 6i reports. Upgrading to Reports 10g
> > would mean we'd have to charge our clients more to cover the
> > increased licensing costs of the reports elements of application
> > server, with no obvious benefit to themselves.
>
> It would also mean your clients would be using supported technology.
> Is that a benefit?
No. I know it would be a 'perceived' benefit with some CDOS posters who
rate the use of unsupported versions at a similar level to child
murder, but the reality is we've never hit an Oracle bug with 6i in the
several years we've been using it. In the highly unlikely event we do
in the future, we'll worry about it then.
> It would mean they could meet their legal requirements with respect
> to auditing and compliance. Is that a benefit?
As long as our system & reports meet FSA guidelines, which they do,
there is no legal issue.
> Given that Oracle has made clear, for years, its intention what you
> are really saying is that your firm chose to ignore Oracle and the
> needs of its customers
There ya go, making accusations without knowing anything about our firm
or our customers. It's due to *not* ignoring the needs of our customers
that we haven't delayed other enhancements purely to upgrade something
that doesn't need upgrading, & which would make our software more
expensive for those same customers had we upgraded.
Had we hit regular bugs with 6i (or indeed any bugs), we would
obviously had prioritised things differently.
> making so appropriate this quote from
> Shakespeare:
>
> "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
> petar"
>
> You being the engineer in this case. <g>
>
> If you don't do it now when do you plan to do it? With version 11? 12?
> 20? You should have been making this investment on an on-going basis.
We don't plan to do it with any specific version. When we have a window
in the development cycle to look at alternatives, we'll do so - but
that won't be this year for certain. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
- as Shakespeare probably would've said had he thought of it.
--
Preston.
DA Morgan
> No. I know it would be a 'perceived' benefit with some CDOS posters who
> rate the use of unsupported versions at a similar level to child
> murder, but the reality is we've never hit an Oracle bug with 6i in the
> several years we've been using it. In the highly unlikely event we do
> in the future, we'll worry about it then.
Your attitude speaks loudly and clearly with respect to your value system.
>> If you don't do it now when do you plan to do it? With version 11? 12?
>> 20? You should have been making this investment on an on-going basis.
>
> We don't plan to do it with any specific version. When we have a window
> in the development cycle to look at alternatives, we'll do so - but
> that won't be this year for certain. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
> - as Shakespeare probably would've said had he thought of it.
That window will never come. You will spend more and more of your energy
doing stupid stuff like trying to figure out how to connect a
paleolithic forms tool to the currently supported database. In fact
right now I've got a smile on my face trying to figure out just how you
plan on supporting Oracle 11g.
By the time you decide your customers are more important than whatever
you've currently prioritized you will not have the revenue stream to do
anything other than hire a bankruptcy attorney.
Preston
Careful Daniel, you're getting dangerously close to Sybrand levels of
arrogance with that post.
You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's important
to them. If you think they'd rather we spent time giving them a version
of reports supported by a company they know nothing about & have no
dealings with, & which would cost them more money, than to spend time
developing the enhancements & extra functionality that *they* are
screaming for, then you're so far off the mark it's laughable.
I can only presume you've never worked for a tiny software house (as in
a handful of developers) selling a specialised application that's
almost entirely driven by the needs of a small number of high-value
customers. If you had, you'd know how ridiculous your statements sound
when applied to that type of organisation.
Oh, & we won't be spending any time figuring out how to connect a
'paleolithic forms tood to the currently supported database' as we
don't use forms. If Reports 6i doesn't work with 11g, then obviously
we'll switch to a reporting tool that does work when the time comes.
That tool will most likely be an open source Java based product rather
than Oracle though.
--
Preston.
sybr...@gmail.com
<dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Careful Daniel, you're getting dangerously close to Sybrand levels of
>arrogance with that post.
>
Doesn't the label 'arrogant' equally apply to someone calling himself
'Preston' . After all it is 'Preston' who decides his customers should
remain in the dark.
>You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's important
>to them.
What is important to your customers is a supported version of the
database, a supported version of the O/S and a supported version of
the hardware.
Otherwise they will, when theire servers fall apart, because someone
called 'Preston' advised them not to upgrade, not only pay big bucks
to replace their servers, but they will be also be forced to upgrade
their O/S (as their current crap isn't certified against the new
hardware), and their software, including Oracle, etc, etc, etc,
Maybe some customers don't understand this, as they have never been
informed by someone called 'Preston', but then someone called
'Preston' 's software policy is full of 'Pennywise, pound foolish'
Likely this will put him out of business someday.
I can't say I will regret this.
DA Morgan
>> You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's important
>> to them.
Highly unlikely.
No survey of database customers I've ever seen has demonstrated a
desire to be orphaned technologically by a company more interested
in short-term profits than developing a long-term viable solution
that supports compliance. No survey published has ever demonstrated
an interest by customers in having an unsupported product.
If you've got metrics collected by an independent research organization
that contradicts the above by all means publish them here.
If not perhaps you should re-examine the basis for your belief system.
Ana C. Dent
@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
> sybr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's important
>>> to them.
>
You mis-attributed the statement above.
Don't confuse him with facts when he has already made up his mind.
DA Morgan
Thanks for the clarification.
It is always dangerous to get between a for-profit company's short-term
and short-sighted objective and what it perceives as an open wallet.
I'll killfile this one to avoid stepping in it again.
Preston
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 06:12:55 GMT, "Preston"
> <dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Careful Daniel, you're getting dangerously close to Sybrand levels
> > of arrogance with that post.
> >
>
> Doesn't the label 'arrogant' equally apply to someone calling himself
> 'Preston' . After all it is 'Preston' who decides his customers should
> remain in the dark.
Wrong on both counts - it's not my decision & our customers aren't in
the dark.
> > You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's
> > important to them.
>
> What is important to your customers is a supported version of the
> database, a supported version of the O/S and a supported version of
> the hardware.
Again, wrong on every count. What's important to our customers is
software that works & meets their business needs, & which is supported
by *us*. You obviously think you know more about our customers
requirements than they do themselves, which frankly doesn't surprise me
(hence the 'Sybrand levels of arrogance' comment).
> Otherwise they will, when theire servers fall apart, because someone
> called 'Preston' advised them not to upgrade, not only pay big bucks
> to replace their servers, but they will be also be forced to upgrade
> their O/S (as their current crap isn't certified against the new
> hardware), and their software, including Oracle, etc, etc, etc,
Well done, you've managed to get that wrong too. All our clients use
'modern' hardware, recent OS & Oracle 10.2.0.2. The only 'unsupported'
software they use is Reports 6i, which is of course supported by us as
the supplier.
> Maybe some customers don't understand this, as they have never been
> informed by someone called 'Preston', but then someone called
> 'Preston' 's software policy is full of 'Pennywise, pound foolish'
Actually it's full of functionality requested by the clients to enable
them to run their businesses. But I'll ring them all up today if you
like & tell them the next release will be delayed a couple of months
because Sybrand says they don't really know what they want, & he knows
better - I'm sure they'll appreciate that.
> Likely this will put him out of business someday.
Yes, that's right. The fact that we've been supplying these
applications for over eleven years without ever hitting a 'show
stopping' bug means it's 'likely' that we'll go out of business because
of one.
> I can't say I will regret this.
So you'd be happy to see a company go out of business, leaving the
employees without a job, just because you don't agree with their policy
regarding one very small part of their application? You really are a
nasty piece of work aren't you.
--
Preston.
Preston
> sybr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > You know absolutely nothing about our customers, nor what's
> > > important to them.
>
> Highly unlikely.
>
> No survey of database customers I've ever seen has demonstrated a
> desire to be orphaned technologically by a company more interested
> in short-term profits than developing a long-term viable solution
> that supports compliance. No survey published has ever demonstrated
> an interest by customers in having an unsupported product.
They have a product supported by *us*, the people who supply it to them.
Try applying your logic to something other than software. If you buy a
new car, say a Toyota, & then discover two years later that the HenSing
Corporation in Japan who make the diode packs for the alternator stop
manufacturing them, would you immediately sell that car & buy a new one
because part of your car is no longer supported by one of the component
manufacturers?
Of course you wouldn't. Your contract is with the supplying dealer, &
Toyota provide the warranty. In the highly unlikely event that the
alternator diode pack fails, the dealer in conjunction with Toyota
would replace it with an alternative.
The only difference with software is some people's attitude to it -
it's just another product. It doesn't suddenly stop working because the
supplier stops supporting it, & as I said before, if it turns out that
Reports 6i doesn't work with a future database release, we will
obviously plan that into the schedule when the time comes.
--
Preston.
Jerry Alan Braga
others. They say, when it broke replace it don't fix it.
Or worse, we have a new one, the old will not work any longer and you are
stupid to support it.
Microsoft and Oracle are the biggest liers even with that. Microsoft till
very recently or even to this day still still use DEC Vax Clusters for some
of its internal systems that they will not trust to their own Windoze
clusters and OS.
I know that you should stay as current as possible for all the right reasons
but like you we are not a big shop so when the wims of people like Larry and
Bill start flying around people like us have to think what body part is next
to leave behind in order to get there.
WOW, I started this thread to get some feedback but I am sure glad to know I
am not they only one in this.
"Preston" <dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:FPfri.178$ka7...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
Frank van Bortel
Hash: SHA1
Jerry Alan Braga wrote:
> no it was not certified for win2003 !
>
> but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server support for forms
> (BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
> We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with that
> terrible jinitiator stuff and others.
>
It's been possible to run forms, using the native IE JVM ever
since Forms 4.5 (aka Developer/2000). That is native, not JInitiator!
Removing JVM from Windows - BIIIIGGGG mistake!
Runing on Terminal Server == running on unsupported software == YOYO
- --
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Top-posting is one way to shut me up...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFGtwRuLw8L4IAs830RAr9OAKCc8YDhebG6TVLSf9CQRM901vZOUQCdF+Wf
nc5OESr4rZzUdiFvrWXXJ1w=
=37tg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Linehan
Preston wrote:
> Oh, & we won't be spending any time figuring out how to connect a
> 'paleolithic forms tood to the currently supported database' as we
> don't use forms. If Reports 6i doesn't work with 11g, then obviously
> we'll switch to a reporting tool that does work when the time comes.
> That tool will most likely be an open source Java based product rather
> than Oracle though.
I have found that in my work, companies/developers rarely (rarely
are able to) take advantage of what Oracle/MS/IBM has to offer
in their given db because they want to be "database agnostic"
(had interview day before yesterday where that exact
phrase was mentioned).
They also (in the interests of database agnosticity) don't make
use of even the basic features of rdbms's. I worked for a
company which had a client base of *_HUGE_* companies in Britain
(one which I worked on site for had a turnover of £3.8 billion
and employs 32000 people) whose app ran on Oracle which didn't
even make use of foreign keys - Imagine my surprise (two or three
days into the place), querying dba_indexes, user_indexes &c.
*_AND_* this was their major ERM app!!!!!
I thought it was I who was being stupid. If you are thinking of
moving to another reporting tool with Windows as the client,
then I would recommend Delphi and their 3rd party reporting
tools against whatever db you like. Do you have compelling reasons
to stay with Oracle? As you say you are a small software house
with cost-conscious clients - do you really need all its
functionality? Many of the Open Source dbs have excellent
feature sets for those who don't require Oracle's kitchen
sink implementations.
For the benefit of those who bandy about (far too readily IMHO)
that any db which is not Oracle is a "toy", I am not "dissing"
Oracle - it just may not be the best solution for all business
needs.
Paul...