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

pagesflames_at_usa.net (Dusan Bolek) kirjoitteli seuraavaa:

>Who cares about Linux ?

Optimal solution for wide range of workstation or server uses.

As well you could ask 'Who cares about Solaris?'.

> Database business is not a field for toy-OS
>like Linux is.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Anything that runs on IBM mainframe is not a toy. It also fills Unix '98 certification requirements, although it's not certified due the huge cost of certification.

If Linux would be limited to PC's only, I would agree with you, but this is not the case (unlike the well-known hype-OS).

You could even run your Sun-boxes with Linux.

> Maybe Linux is really cool, stable, has a lot of
>features. However question is: Who give me a support for it ?

IBM is giving me the support. If you can't find support, it's not OS's fault, it's available.

On the other hand, it's easy to build in-house support and not very expensive, either.

>If our company encounter any problem with Solaris, then after one call
>we'll have building full of SUN consultants, because we're maybe the
>best SUN client in country.

And you pay a high price for that. Probably more than many smaller company earn.

Using consultans is the rich man's way to do things.

> With Linux I need to hire external Linux
>consultants.

Maybe you do, I don't. Anyway, Linux-consultants are much cheaper than Solaris-consultants (or Windows- )

Anybody who understands Solaris, could understand Linux in few days enough to actually do something on it.

> I do not know how good they're,

Rule number one is: there are no good consultans, unless proven otherwise.

> because no certificates
>are available and no strong background in commercial company.

Certificate is just a piece of paper when there is something to be done. It doesn't guarantee that certified person can do something about _your_ problems.

Lack of commercial background is a good thing, no overpriced consultans, as especially with Windows.

>Linux is
>maybe the best platform for Internet servers (like proxy, mail, web),

Not the best, but good enough: simple and cheap.

>but for database applications commercial UNIXs are more suitable.

In corporate environment, yes. In small bussinesses, no.

Company with five people can't afford HP9000, HP-UX and Oracle on top of that, but they can afford a PC running Linux and Oracle. (And they had to fight even that Oracle, it's not cheap)

Would you instead recommend NT and/or SQL Server for small companies?

I wouldn't.

>P.S. Just my humble opinion. No intentions to start flame wars. :-)

Opinions didn't look very humble so flames will fly. ;) (Just small ones, I think.)

Tuomas Received on Thu Aug 16 2001 - 08:19:07 CDT