Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> "Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:caq2b4$517$1_at_news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>
>>Don't feel this as criticism - it isn't; if you felt it like that
>>in any way, I apologize.
>
>
> Don't apologise! I felt no criticism. I just think that a background process
> should be known as a background process regardless of the platform
> architecture we're dealing with, because it's a well-worn Oraclism.
>
> It's a bit like (but not exactly) telling someone to open a "DOS Window",
> even though you know they're running on Windows 2003, and the command window
> is not actually DOS at all... some things acquire names by which they should
> be known even if technically imprecise or flat-out wrong.
Being slapped on the wrist for that once, I try to avoid the
term DOS box, and refer to it as command line window :)
>
> Another trickier example: I still talk and write about DBWR and ARCH.
> Technically, that's incorrect, because the processes grep'd on a Unix box
> would actually be listed as DBW0 and ARC0, even when there's only one of
> each. Since 8.0, we've been supposed to talk about "DBWn" and "ARCn". Should
> we? Do we? I find myself doing so when I'm in full pedant mode, and not when
> I want a friendly name to apply to them, not something that looks like it
> comes from the Big Boys Book of Equations. I also sometimes remind myself
> that Unix users don't need nice friendly names for things, so who cares if
> the name used doesn't match with a ps listing; whereas Windows users do need
> friendly names, and won't be able to see anything else used by Oracle
> itself, so the secret is safe! It's a dashed complicated world we live in!!
>
>
>>The response "where does this process come from" upon you starting
>>off on PMON triggered the urge to reply, and -hopefully- clarify
>>for the OP. Unless A. Coder replies, we'll never know, will we?
>
>
> I take the point.
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
--
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Received on Thu Jun 17 2004 - 14:06:41 CDT
