Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Firm picks Oracle 10g on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the long haul
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | When it came time for fleet tracking and management software provider
> | Cadec Global LLC to rebuild its software as a Software as a Service
> | (SaaS) offering, Cadec's chief architect, Heimir Sverrisson, knew it had
> | to be deployed on Linux, not Microsoft Windows or a proprietary Unix
> | flavor like Sun Microsystems' Solaris or IBM's AIX.
> `----
>
>
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1277719,00.html
>
If you read the text of this it makes for strange reading. Not the platform
or the OS, but the database.
"The worry of different users being able to see into each other's database,
while not wanting one database per user".
Databases that don't allow one user to see another user's data are pretty
fundamental. It makes you wonder what the team actually meant. There has to
be more to it than is written in the artical.
There is nothing wrong with their choice of Oracle, but the singular reason
of wanting to keep the users seperate wasn't enough to opt for one database
over another. It is simply a matter of implementation, what ever database
is selected.
I would also question their reasons for dismissing Solaris. I am sure a
Redhat or two could do a good job at this, but if they are going to
eventually aim at high volume comms, then I wouldn't be so willing to throw
Solaris out of the picture.
We only have the text of that artical to go by, probably there was a good in
depth study before deciding on a platform, OS and database engine. I also
have no problems with their final choices of Redhat and Oracle. But I get
the impression from the text that all is not well, decisions made for wrong
reasons always gets my neck hairs twitching.
Ok, hands up, I am as guilty as anyone of sometimes making a design decision
based purely on the fact that there is something I want to play with. It's
easy to make the board room meeting biased towards what you want to do
rather than what should be done. That is not the same thing as the article
suggests to me has been done for PowerVue.
|
|
