On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:26:43PM -0700, Jason Majors wrote: > > Uh, what? bash is a bourne shell (and then some). ash is probably a > > more "pure" bourne shell; it's not clear to me whether it strives more > > for bourne or POSIX compliance. Who told you debian didn't have a > > bourne shell? I'd request that they reach between their legs, grasp > > their neck firmly and pull hard ... they just _might_ pull their head > > out of their ass. > Oracle support says it must be the bourne shell, not the bourne again > shell. > Most likely an excuse to put the pressure on somebody else, but that's > what their tech said. > I installed oracle 8.1.7 on linux about a year ago. I don't know if 9i is any better (I suspect not). I had to use ash for /bin/sh and I had to have awk installed and it had to be /bin/awk. Think I used gawk but I can't remember now (I've slept since then). The install was via the java install tool oracle has but it calls other stuff. The computer I installed it on was a p5-133 with 128 Mb ram. It didn't run too well. The sample database took 96Mb memory. I can use sqlplus and such and it works ok as a client...
jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
