Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, yttrx belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oracle 11g ships first on Linux, not Microsoft Windows
>>
>> No DBA worth their weight in poodle shit would run Oracle on Windows unless
>> they were threatened with firing by a retarded manager with styrofoam for
>> brains. Why? Not because microsoft is evil or windows is crap---but in this
>> case, because the Unices (and linux, recently) allow for very fine tuning of
>> things like semaphores and shared memory.
>
> A decade ago, I watch a couple guys floundering with Oracle development
> on Windows. I don't know for sure if was that combination, or their
> incompetence/inexperience, but it sure made our client go with SQL Server.
>
>> And, it runs better on Unix than it does on Linux anyhow.
>
> Again, would that be Linux's fault, or the Oracle guys' fault?
>
Eh, a little of both. Oracle on linux isn't yet mature, and Linux isn't
really quite as tunable as say, Solaris for large Oracle applications.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
