| |||||||||||||
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)Posted Oct 19, 2006 4:20 UTC (Thu) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093)In reply to: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) by dang Parent article: Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool)
Actually, Oracle-ux wouldn't need xorg nor gnome-libs. If I were making an oracle distro, I'd cut it to just:
(Log in to post comments)
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 19, 2006 12:33 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] ROTFL
You haven't looked at the requirements of Oracle tools did you ? They *will* force you to install X and a full web stack to handle the database (including niceties like motif)
Oracle Isn't a Linux Company (Motley Fool) Posted Oct 20, 2006 23:19 UTC (Fri) by dang (guest, #310) [Link] High on the list of DBA requests to Oracle for a long time now has been for a non-graphical installer, but no go. If you want to roll oracle you need X and Gnome.
Things get more complex when you want to build for 64 bit. Oracle wants a nice mix of 64 and 32 bit libs along with a stunning list of compat libs. Redhat ( and I imagine Suse ) handle all of that; I'm not so sure that Oracle would want to handle that mess on top of the rest.
In a lot of ways the least interesting part of this concerns the kernel. The give and take between Oracle and kernel developers ( and via projects rolled by distro vendors ) seems effective and old news. If oracle goes there own way it won't be with linux-the-kernel but with a distro, and they will really, really buy a chunk of work if they cut the major distros out of the loop. And for what upside? What is the business case for this? Where do they realize more revenue at the end of the day? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||