On 27 Jul 2002 at 17:03, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On 2002.07.27 19:58 Eric D. Pierce wrote: > > Silly masturbatory bigotry. I suppose you think it is a good > > thing to drive all the NT people to using SQL Server by acting > > like a typical snobby *sshole Unix DBA? > > If someone wants to use SQL*Server, he'll do it. Oracle is too big and > too > expensive for a small corner shop. MySQL and PostGres are even greater > danger to both of them. Incidentally, I expect Oracle Corp. to bring > prices > down soon. Very soon. So we should expect a whole new bunch of "newbee" NT Oracle DBAs to join the list? :) haaa haaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa >As for the "snobby *sshole Unix DBA", yes, I am a > Unix > guy, I used to be a VMS guy, but Micros*t operating systems simply do > not satisfy > my stability and adaptability criteria. So what? Are you saying that your experience eclipses everything that goes on in the market? I have nothing against deep-skill-set people and the nbecessary role they play as long as they don't try to "colonize" every other aspect of the industry with elitist b*llsh*t attitudes. >Believe it or not, it's the > pricing that > drives business decision, not a preference toward some specially > likable OS. If Oracle > doesn't bring prices down, people will be using SQL*Server on NT, one > way or another. I would say it is functionality and price. > > If the guys asking the question wanted to learn Linsux they > > would have. > > Well, if you want an operating systems that any idiot can use, than > idiots > will use it. That particularly applies to Windoze. So, extending your statement to its logical conclusion, only "experts" should have PCs, and the mass market for computers was a social aberration? The reason MS established market domination was not just because of monopolistic practices, there was an existing vacuum on the low end of the market that MS learned to exploit by creating mass market products that the high-skill-set elitists/purists weren't inclined towards. >The guys should know > that, whoever the guys might be. "They guys" are the ones asking the question about certification of oracle db 8.1.7 on XP. As far as I know, there is no evidence that they either "should", or "do" know that. > > > Linsux desktop is still sucky. > > It is? Depends on what you mean by "sucky". That doesn't sound like a > particularly well > defined criteria. I like my home environment (SuSE 8.0) far better then > my office environment > (Windoze 2000). That proves nothing. Just because a high-skill-set nuix bigot, obviously steeped in the arcana of "systems" is able to get a working desktop Linsux environment setup says NOTHING about the mass market. I have abundant evidence that even techies that have attempted to run Linsux desktop because the that MS find it too much of a real pain in the *ss after a while, and go back to MS in order to get work done. >I, for one, think that windoze sucks. Obviously, but so what? > > There are a lot of > > stable production windows server systems. Not as good Unix, > > but it doesn't have to be. > > Oh, there are? Read the book on Oracle9i on Windows 2000 by three Oracle employees (one of whom was on the list a while ago and said basically the same things I am). http://mhorder.com/oracle9i/0072194626.html >I've also heard that legend, but after having an > Exchange server down > last week for almost a day, I stopped believing it. ??? Does that mean you don't know how to run Exchange, or that Exchange sucks, or both? If the latter, how does Exchange (AKA SQL Server) being sucky automatically mean that all of NT is sucky??? >Moreover, for the > database server, > it DOES HAVE to be as good and as stable as >possible. Reliability is on a continuum. There are certainly instances of mainframes and unix being set up in a flaky, unreliable manner by people that lack expertise. Just because maingrame/unix is being used doesn't magically confer perfection on a system and guarantee 100% stability. Now, if some guy wants to install Oracle on a laptop for (e.g.) testing/training purposes, I would suggest that it is utter f*ing insanity to say that they have absolutely no chance of doing it in a "stable" enough manner. >I can live with > rebooting > a desktop machine twice a day, but if that happens to the database > server, I'm in > trouble. What are you basing your comments on? Can someone ask Oracle if the large number of production Oracle/NT systems that exist require daily rebooting? Your statement is ridiculous. >That is why my company is using 4-way HP 9000/N cluster. NT > simply doesn't > cut it. Again: SO WHAT? In case the though never occurred to you, you and your company are not the center of the universe,and the end of all human possibility or experience. > > Here is the main problem with MS: in order to sell product > > (new operating systems), they have to sell it on new systems. > > So in order to get people to buy new systems, they have to add > > bloat (er... "features"). > > > > .NET is full of bloat (Palladium, etc.), but if MS' marketing > > people succeed in convincing the market that .NET is easier > > than java and open source, they will "win". > > Microsoft is, legally, a monopolly, which still has to be regulated. Of course, but the ultimate "demonopolization" of MS probably ultimately can't be done (at least in the short run) without doing FAR more damage to society and the market than it would be worth. Of course to the real, pure Unix bigot, society and markets don't matter, rather, MS must be defeated for the "jihad" of elitist, purist technomania to attain its "triumph". > The legal remedies are still in the process. Winning over Java and open > source in the usual Microsoft way will probably not be possible. The > "MS way" > means strongarming PC dealers and threatenning clients to revoke > licenses if > they deploy a "hostile OS". Given the anti-corporate mentality that is developing, I would doubt that MS will ever be able to use those tactics as openly as they used to. And they probably don't have to. All they have to do is brainwash mass market purchasers into thinking that all the latest bells and whistles are needed. regards, ep -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Eric D. Pierce INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
