| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Why doesn't Oracle care about Linux as IBM does?
"Charles J. Fisher" <cfisher_at_rhadmin.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0108211545490.29526-100000_at_galt.rhadmin.org...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Dino Hsu wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Why doesn't Oracle care much for Linux? Let us count the ways:
>
> 1. Lousy filesystem with max file size of 2 Gig and no LVM - although this
> has only recently been improved with the 2.4 kernel and 9i on SUSE.
>
> 2. Mainstream Linux is really only 32-bit x86 - Oracle doesn't support the
> 64-bit versions of Linux (yet). Linux and NT are the low-end bottom
> feeders of the supported Oracle platforms.
>
> 3. Lousy SMP scalability (4-8 processor max, compared to 64-128 for
> Alpha, Sparc, Power.
>
> 4. No high-end partitioning (and no, VmWare doesn't count). All the big
> players support this except AIX (I think).
>
> 5. Anybody trying to get scalability improvements into the kernel ends
> up pulling their hair out, Oracle included.
>
> 6. Spat with RedHat which resulted in the rebranded RedHat Database
> Edition packaged around PostgreSQL (which is dead in the water until
> a major ISV supports it - boneheaded move, RedHat!).
>
> When you look at it, SCO UnixWare is probably more scalable than Linux -
> but do you see Oracle rushing to support it? Be glad that Oracle does what
> they do with Linux; I would understand them dropping it completely.
>
> Larry occasionally has bad things to say about Linux - last I heard, he
> was admonishing Apps consultants not to even THINK about Linux. But then
> again, he is hawking that Linux-based network terminal, too.
>
> I do understand DB2's fixation on Linux - with it's "shared nothing"
> architecture, it is probably a better fit.
Good point. LINUX won't get you anywhere so Oracle should keep ignoring it
:-)
Here's proof of how useless Linux is:
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2001/08/092.html
;-}
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Received on Wed Aug 22 2001 - 08:20:50 CDT
>
 |
 |