Re: Why doesn't Oracle care about Linux as IBM does?

I would doubt that internally each platform development for a release actually occurs at the same time. That is internal to IBM (not visible to the public) each release on each platform is probably done or finished at different times. So that in actuality IBM must be delaying one or more platforms in order that they all are "released" on the same day. (or close enough to the same day) If DB2 only runs on 6 platforms (I'm counting Linux as one) then this strategy is probably feasible as the developers, QA etc. for these platforms probably finish fairly close together. In Oracle's case we are talking something like 90 platforms (still only counting Linux as one) and so it really wouldn't be feasible to release all in the same month never mind the same day.

Thus it is possible that Oracle will support multiple Linux releases in the future. However, Oracle will not make them all available at the same time. In all likelihood Oracle probably has the same Linux developers working on different Linux releases; therefore it is probably a serial release. I imagine that they released on what they perceive as the most popular Linux distribution. (They may be wrong, I don't know I don't know the differences between different Linux distributions.) As one person pointed out Oracle 9i for Windows NT is not even out yet.

IMHO we have two different release strategies here. As Blair points out IBM releases everything at once and Oracle dribbles the release out among its platforms. Given the widely different number of platforms that they two companies support I think they make sense for each company given its situation.

This reminds me of a story I was told by an old IBMer. He was working on a project and the computer had to support like 30 users at the same time. The marketing folks wanted the response time on a particular benchmark to be the same whether there was one user or 30 users. This sounds fantastic and what a great marketing requirement. (devoid of how machines actually work) So you can guess how they accomplished this "feat". The OS inserted wait states depending upon how many people were on the system. Fewer people more wait states. But they met the requirement. This happened a long time ago (probably about 40 to 50 years ago).

Jim

"Blair Adamache" <adamache_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote in message news:3B772DE1.6E135831_at_ca.ibm.com...
> Maybe for Oracle. Each DB2 Unix/Windows release is available on all
 supported
> platforms on the same day: Windows, multiple Linux distributions, AIX,
 Solaris,
> HP and OS/2.
>
> Dino Hsu wrote:
>
> > Dear Howard,
> >
> > Do you mean the real release date from the first platform to the last
> > platform can span several months to one year? I am sorry I don't know
> > that. By the way, has Oracle published a schedule of the release dates
> > of individual platforms?
> >
> > Dino
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:03:07 +1000, "Howard J. Rogers"
> > <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Dino Hsu" <dino1_at_ms1.hinet.net> wrote in message
> > >news:2v3ant40th3s908so2458bg6gvb4lh2nib_at_4ax.com...
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> I am confused when I see this line everywhere:
> > >> "We discovered that nothing runs on Linux bettern than DB2"
> > >> Oracle doesn't seem to care too much about Linux, it's 9i only
> > >> supports one SuSe distribution. (if it cares, Red Hat and other major
> > >> distributions should be supported as well).
> > >
> > >
> > >It's a daft argument, put like that. Oracle 9i for NT isn't even out
 yet...
> > >does that mean Oracle doesn't care about NT? No, it means that
 products
> > >have release plans and cycles... and just as NT is rather down on that
 list,
> > >so is any other Linux distribution than SuSe.
> > >
> > >They have to start somewhere, for heaven's sake!
> > >
> > >If 9i isn't running on most major distributions of Linux by mid 2002 at
 the
> > >latest, I'd be very much surprised.
> > >
> > >HJR
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Furthermore, many people here (senior DBA's) don't think of Linux as
 a
> > >> 'Unix'. To them, Unix means IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, HP-UX, etc.. This
> > >> may be due to Linux's growing up from PC-based machines, although
> > >> later ported to many different H/W platforms.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, IBM is so supportive about Linux, it even uses
> > >> Linux in the world's biggest supercomputer:
> > >> http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010809S0018
> > >> Linux and AIX are both Unix's, IBM may have to choose one of them as
 a
> > >> result. Is it because IBM likes open source software so much that it
> > >> cannot but take Linux back home?
> > >>
> > >> Can someone comment on this? Thanks in advance.
> > >>
> > >> Dino
> > >>
> > >
>
Received on Sun Aug 12 2001 - 21:07:48 CDT