- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Oracle updates Linux FAQs
|
|
Comments (7)
Check out #3 and #4 in that FAQ...
Did I read that right? Oracle's support contracts cover not just Oracle, but Linux OS support as well?
Do they do this with Oracle-on-Windows issues as well? I somehow can't picture it...I can't see them going beyond "well, that appears to be a Windows issue, you'll have to call Microsoft." on that platform.
Presumably this has something to do with the fact that Oracle has access to the GNU/Linux sources (i.e. including various utilities as well as the kernel) and so they CAN address OS problems directly if they need to. I guess having access to the source benefits end-users after all, even if they never use it directly themselves.
Oracle made a major commitment to Linux some time ago. In fact, they paid for Red Hat's Common Criteria certification. Oracle and Dell also have a close knit relationship with Red Hat with staff occupying positions at the various partners' facilities.
Oracle doesn't like Microsoft. They get along with them because they have to get along with Microsoft, but they would such as soon see Microsoft go away.
Oracle doesn't like Microsoft. They get along with them because they have to get along with Microsoft, but they would such as soon see Microsoft go away.
The Oracle commitment to Linux starts at the top, fueled in no small part by Larry Ellison's disdain for Bill Gates and Microsoft.
Larry Ellison is one of the few IT guys who could make you start to like Bill Gates, but that's not all bad. If it takes one to know one, it might just take one to bloody one.
Larry Ellison is one of the few IT guys who could make you start to like Bill Gates, but that's not all bad. If it takes one to know one, it might just take one to bloody one.
dinotrac: Larry has it under control these days. Just an update.
There are other reasons that Oracle prefers to support Oracle on Linux: you are not going to see SQL Server on it anytime soon.
Why didn't it happen? Perhaps due to the Oracle baiting of MS offering to pay a large amount of cash to anyone that could show SQL Server could even match Oracle at only a fraction of the pace of the then current Oracle database. Despite this being a rigged "contest' (due to the conditions impose by Oracle) SQL Server could be made to seem inferior by a seeming objective measure when operated on the same OS. Perhaps that was the reason for backing off. In a sense SQL Server was and is not now targeting the same market segment and user class. Hence, perhaps MS was afraid it could not out posture Oracle? If one believes that, then the conclusion must be that MS doubted its forte with PR was a match for Oracle and a real explanation on target market would not suffice in a pissing match with Oracle. It perhaps thought too that time was on its side with the apparent fading of the Unixes and its hegemony on the Windows machines.
Those are my guesses: other than adding the decisions were made at a high level.
Now MS's problems are compounded, with incipient signs that its OS even on the so called desktop is being challenged by an upstart. Moreover, its planned, unhindered expansion into server space with the approaching demise of "Unix" is not going as expected. Furthermore, the unexpected revival of big iron on some sites is disquieting, where some can even can run Linux. Perhaps even more dangerous in the long term one of the now major proponents of Linux (and the mainframe) found MS to be a devious partner that heaped scorn and disrespect in parting [read a bit of history of OS/2]. The question becomes: who within MS has the daring and the means to release SQL Server on Linux with all of its possible negative consequences? Now for fun add these potential problems.
What if MySQL far out paces SQL Server on LInux?
What if PostgreSQL had features SQL Server lacked?
What if Sybase outperformed SQL Server on LInux?
What if Oracle really ...
Quoting: [rumor] Years ago MS had SQL Server operating under Unix. Moreover, some planned for MS to offer a commercial Unix version.[/rumor]
Why didn't it happen? Perhaps due to the Oracle baiting of MS offering to pay a large amount of cash to anyone that could show SQL Server could even match Oracle at only a fraction of the pace of the then current Oracle database. Despite this being a rigged "contest' (due to the conditions impose by Oracle) SQL Server could be made to seem inferior by a seeming objective measure when operated on the same OS. Perhaps that was the reason for backing off. In a sense SQL Server was and is not now targeting the same market segment and user class. Hence, perhaps MS was afraid it could not out posture Oracle? If one believes that, then the conclusion must be that MS doubted its forte with PR was a match for Oracle and a real explanation on target market would not suffice in a pissing match with Oracle. It perhaps thought too that time was on its side with the apparent fading of the Unixes and its hegemony on the Windows machines.
Those are my guesses: other than adding the decisions were made at a high level.
Now MS's problems are compounded, with incipient signs that its OS even on the so called desktop is being challenged by an upstart. Moreover, its planned, unhindered expansion into server space with the approaching demise of "Unix" is not going as expected. Furthermore, the unexpected revival of big iron on some sites is disquieting, where some can even can run Linux. Perhaps even more dangerous in the long term one of the now major proponents of Linux (and the mainframe) found MS to be a devious partner that heaped scorn and disrespect in parting [read a bit of history of OS/2]. The question becomes: who within MS has the daring and the means to release SQL Server on Linux with all of its possible negative consequences? Now for fun add these potential problems.
What if MySQL far out paces SQL Server on LInux?
What if PostgreSQL had features SQL Server lacked?
What if Sybase outperformed SQL Server on LInux?
What if Oracle really ...
Tom -
That would be good, but I'll believe it when I see some sign that it's true.
Quoting:Larry has it under control these days. Just an update.
That would be good, but I'll believe it when I see some sign that it's true.
SQL Server was originally Sybase SQL Server 4.2. They sold it to Microsoft because it was a D-O-G or dawg if you're from west Texas. Start there. It originally had versions for UNIX and M$ NT.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post