Re: Oracle released ( finally ) 10.2 on solaris 10 x86 ( 32 bit )

From: Bob Jones <email_at_me.not>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:29:26 GMT
Message-ID: <W%GQg.3688$IA.2892@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message news:1158811085.281833_at_bubbleator.drizzle.com...

> Bob Jones wrote:
>> "Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message 
>> news:fse0h2ttig5fakibg7flrtddcvhk09jp2d_at_4ax.com...

>>> On 19 Sep 2006 11:08:20 -0700, "Vladimir M. Zakharychev"
>>> <vladimir.zakharychev_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I would go with Solaris - Linux won't be anywhere near in
>>>> features, stability and scalability for the next few years even with
>>>> all effort put into it, by which time Solaris will move even
>>>> further.And there are so many flavours of Linux, supporting them all is
>>>> simply impossible even though they may all be based on the same kernel
>>>> (and Oracle doesn't, they support but 3 different distributions
>>>> afaik...) But Larry strongly supports Linux, at least in interviews, so
>>>> who knows...
>>> Finally someone who has something sensible to say about Linux, and
>>> doesn't subscribe to the Linux hype.
>>> Personally I think there are so many flavours, that there is no such
>>> thing as 'Linux'.
>>>

>>
>> There are so many flavors of UNIX, does that mean there is no such thing 
>> as 'UNIX'.
>
> In the context of the statement I would say that it is a reasonable
> interpretation. Just as to talk about shell scripting without
> specifying Bourne, C, Korn, or bash is reasonably meaningless.
> -- 

The statement was wrong in any context.

What's meaningless about shell scripting in general? I hear people talking about it all the time. But again that's besides the point. Received on Thu Sep 21 2006 - 20:29:26 CDT