Re: How to install oracle on UNIX

nospam1978_at_yahoo.com (Tom Barnes) wrote in message news:<5af28966.0410070611.9257389_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<4164c9a7$0$23894$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > >> Your practical and empirical experience on this matter is as nought
> > >> compared with the direction Oracle itself is moving in, I would say.
> > >
> > > Tom Barnes wrote:
> > >
> > > No offense, but couldn't I say the same thing about your instructions
> > > for how to install Oracle on unsupported Linux platforms?
>
> > Whether or not Oracle supports distro X, my instructions for distro X would
> > have still included instructions for setting the kernel parameters.
>
> I guess what I was trying to say was... Your material is hands-on
> instructions on how to install Oracle in the
> not-quite-100%-Oracle-approved way (ie you're installing on
> unsupported platforms). Keg was also explaining how to install Oracle
> without following Oracle's guidelines 100%.

There's an important difference: Howard was explaining how to do something that Oracle doesn't, with full caveats, while Keg is advocating ignoring Oracle's explicit instructions for production installations. Keg appears to be making a mistake common to operational environments: that trying a few things and having it work is the same as QC. That is particularly nonsensical given new versions or even patch levels, a good installation person will re-read the instructions. I don't think Howard has advocated using unsupported installations in production.

Personally, I haven't seen too many large or medium unix machines that have a long time between OS installation and database creation. In fact, the only ones I have seen have had hardware problems or wrong media. The general case is "here's all the cd's and boxes, get this thing together." I did see an IBM sit in a warehouse for years because the major app vendor failed acceptance testing... while the two guys with the unix box already had a better system up and running...

>
> > Third and final: go and read what I originally wrote again. Put it all back
> > into context. There is not the whif of flame about it.
>
> I was commenting on the whole thread, not your post specifically. I am
> not accusing you of flaming, I apologize if you think I did.

I can only speak for myself, but I think there may have been some feeling that Keg came in and started making arrogant judgements about this group, here and in other threads. Keg, if you're still reading this, welcome to the group. Seriously. Much flamage comes from people who care about the group. Stick around for a while and it becomes clear why; This relates closely to our livelihoods, and some posts just plain deserve it. We all need to re-read the emily postnews stuff now and again, and try to emulate the neutrality of the nicer folk.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Just 'cause someone quotes Genghis Khan doesn't make him a bad person,
does it?  http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041007/news_1b7people.html