Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 00:13:10 -0700, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/5/05, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:57:15 -0700, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OpenBSD is written for uses where freedom, stability, adherence to standards, and security are the top concerns You are pontificating your personal opinions on why OpenBSD is written and what OpenBSD is used for to Ted Unangst? Point taken. What I expressed in that email was my interpretation of the Free, Functional, and Secure mantra. I'd be fairly worried for someone that was trying to run Oracle on OpenBSD in a production environment; just trying to make it run out of personal interest or whatever worries me much less. All that being said, whether anyone chooses to make decisions based on what worries me personally is their own matter. -Josh For what it's worth, I think most people would generally agree with your interpretation, but I found the situation ironically funny. :-) (I hope the joking around wasn't too harsh) Each release I print out a list with the names of all the developers and pin it to my wall. There's a lot of people on that list that I've never conversed with and simply don't know. Pinning that list to my wall is not really hero-worship (well maybe a little bit), but instead, it's really for remembering who I ought to thank. Kind Regards, JCR
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:46:55PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: Heck, in general I agree with you. Any such effort would start off as a sad hack, it would be a lot of work and in the end, there might be nothing gained in the way of fixes since Oracle will probably just ignore your bug reports. I even tried to point out the fact you'll probably be ignored in my very first post (having enough $ for Oracle to think you're important). If your goal is just getting something into production, you are completely correct that it would take less effort to work with Oracle on their supported platforms or work on other database packages on OpenBSD. You described the smart/fast answer for getting things into production. On the other hand, if you are *already* using Oracle db's your business and you consider your data to be valuable, is it worth the time/money to run experiments to find out more about the Oracle code you are already running and how/if the vendor responds to your bug reports? Even if you are not important enough to Oracle get them to fix the problems you find, you have still gained insight from the experiments and testing; You've gained insight of how/if the vendor responds to your PR's and knowledge of bugs that exist. The insight itself is valuable in your decision making process of what software to run/buy and it is also valuable for finding your own ways to compensate for the inadequacies in a product you are already running. I don't want to repeat my previous mistake of assuming you do not value such insight, but from what you've stated, the work/cost/pain involved with gaining such insight through experiments is something you prefer to avoid. It's a perfectly reasonable stance for you and the (possibly overwhelming) majority of small/medium sized business out there. In contrast, if you happen to be responsible for something *huge* like a stock exchange, a mega-corp like General Electric or a on-line monstrosity like Amazon or eBay, extensive and continual research and testing is just smart risk management and is worth the pain/cost. Even if you disagree on the value of the insight gained from such testing, it's fairly short sighted to assume everyone on this list is only dealing with small stuff and they all lack the (unfortunately) required contacts and influence needed to get Oracle to act on problem reports. What might be an impossible idealistic dream to you, may be nothing more than a simple phone call for others. It would only take one such person to turn a Oracle/OpenBSD Franken-System project into something very useful. On average and in general you're basically right about things but still, there are a handful of corner cases where you're wrong. They are not common but they do exist. There *is* a valid reason to test Oracle, as you pointed out. That does not mean running Oracle on OpenBSD. Oracle on OpenBSD is most likely to fail because the Linux emulation does not work exactly the way Oracle wants it to work, and in the few cases where it's actually a Oracle bug it will be nearly impossible to chase down where the bug actually is. If you want to test Oracle, test it on a well-supported platform, as that will cause you to find bugs that are both reasonably likely to be in Oracle, and will be fixed in a reasonable time (in the case of Oracle, several months to a couple of years for the most serious bugs, according to Full-Disclosure bug reports at least... but you chose to use it, not me). If you want to test OpenBSD's Linux emulation, test it with a stable open source program so that you can actually figure out what is going wrong. Both are valid things to test - but mixing two unknowns makes sorting out the mess very difficult, especially because Oracle is closed source and apparently quite picky about what it wants to run on. Joachim
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:38:07 -0800, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted happens to be one of the guys responsible for writing OpenBSD, so you'd probably be much better off *asking* Ted why OpenBSD is written and what its uses are. then why is he asking for support? im not saying ted isnt an openbsd developer. it just seems odd he is asking for aid in getting software to run on it. If Oracle software is too broken to run properly on OpenBSD and Oracle refuses to fix their bugs (i.e. failure to actually support their products), then you might want to reconsider your choice of software to see if there are other alternatives available. this is very wrong, and you should contimplate replacing your thought process. oracle.com TELLS you what they support. and they do NOT say that they support bsd. this would be like screaming at Microsoft cause Office doesnt run smoothly under wine on linux. CAUSE THEY DONT SUPPORT WINE OR LINUX. im sure the box and there web site says they only support Microsoft Windows for there office products. - Zac
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On 12/6/05, Zachery Hostens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:38:07 -0800, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted happens to be one of the guys responsible for writing OpenBSD, so you'd probably be much better off *asking* Ted why OpenBSD is written and what its uses are. then why is he asking for support? He's not. He simply said huh? why would you say that? in question to someone saying one should only run Oracle on supported OSes. im not saying ted isnt an openbsd developer. That's good because he is. it just seems odd he is asking for aid in getting software to run on it. He isn't. If Ted couldn't get it to run on OpenBSD I doubt many others would. Greg
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On 12/6/05, Zachery Hostens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: then why is he asking for support? im not saying ted isnt an openbsd developer. it just seems odd he is asking for aid in getting software to run on it. i wasn't. i didn't think the original message was very helpful though. the use of ONLY especially made it sound like an advertisement or something. it'd be like a post saying ONLY run supported operating systems on Dell [or Zaurus] hardware. but now we've all had lots of fun debating the merits of oracle and software support without having to answer the original question, so i'm glad a piped up. :)
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On 12/5/05, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:57:15 -0700, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OpenBSD is written for uses where freedom, stability, adherence to standards, and security are the top concerns You are pontificating your personal opinions on why OpenBSD is written and what OpenBSD is used for to Ted Unangst? Point taken. What I expressed in that email was my interpretation of the Free, Functional, and Secure mantra. I'd be fairly worried for someone that was trying to run Oracle on OpenBSD in a production environment; just trying to make it run out of personal interest or whatever worries me much less. All that being said, whether anyone chooses to make decisions based on what worries me personally is their own matter. -Josh
Re: Oracle, anyone?
Monday, December 5, 2005, 12:49:21 AM, you wrote: FP Has anyone got Oracle 10g working on OpenBSD 3.8? FP What is the general consensus of running Oracle on OpenBSD? Bad idea, use Linux instead. Incidentally, I ask audience, have anyone port oracle7 client (API) like in FreeBSD? :) I don't need Oracle on OpenBSD, but an libraries to build perl DBD::Oracle. I've got oracle7 from FreeBSD and install DBD::Oracle, but after that I've got a problem while running script that only connects to Oracle: /usr/bin/perl: /usr/local/libdata/perl5/site_perl/i386-openbsd/auto/DBD/Oracle/Oracle.so: can't resolve reference '_DefaultRuneLocale' /usr/bin/perl: /usr/local/libdata/perl5/site_perl/i386-openbsd/auto/DBD/Oracle/Oracle.so: can't resolve reference '_CurrentRuneLocale' Segmentation fault (core dumped) -- Sincerely, Dennis
Re: Oracle, anyone?
--- Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Running oracle on any unsupported platform is probably not the best idea, not only because you won't get support, but also because running it on a more secure platform will still leave you with lots of holes; 1) Just an fyi, I have a few boxes Oracle 9iR2 running on FreeBSD 5.2.1 in a test environment and it runs as well if not better (consistently for a year and a half) than Oracle 9iR2 on our production Suse Linux boxes. 1a) Also, I have Oracle 10G running on Mac OSX which Oracle has support for. in other words, you're going to need something in front of the box to 2) I also put Snort on OpenBSD in front of the boxes to add a layer of security. Snort 2 has support for filtering/blocking specific sql statements, etc. and is a terrific way to add a powerful layer of security. - Obi Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, J.C. Roberts wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:57:15 -0700, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone has a viable need of Oracle products, it's in their best interest to get it running on OpenBSD. Why? Going off into unsupported territory where there's probably 10 other shops in the world doing the same thing (i.e. lack of community) will mean chasing down lots and lots of issues yourself with very few resources to turn to. Sure, you're right that many people are primarily interested in getting supposed support from Oracle but forcibly drop kicking Oracle software onto OpenBSD will most likely allow you to find a lot of Oracle bugs. Or a lot of Linux emulation bugs. Or bugs in the linux lib packages triggered by the kernel emulation. Linux emulation + non-native libs + lack of documented issues = lots of variables that are going to make it a royal pain to troubleshoot problems. If you've got enough $ for Oracle Inc to think you're important, they might actually consider fixing the bugs you report. If you've got that much cash to persuade them to do that, you might as well go whole-hog and have them do a native port. And if you have that much cash, you're probably looking at running Oracle on $very_large_hardware that OpenBSD doesn't support yet. If Oracle software is too broken to run properly on OpenBSD and Oracle refuses to fix their bugs (i.e. failure to actually support their products), then you might want to reconsider your choice of software to see if there are other alternatives available. If there's no native port, there is no running properly, period. Even if their software was buggy, how can Oracle be reasonably expected to fix bugs on a system that is more or less rigged with the software equivalent of duct tape and baling wire? That being said, if OpenBSD is a requirement, then change the database to something nice and not so bloated like PostGres. Then at least it'll native compile. -- Signing off, Joseph C. Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master. ---Thomas Jefferson
Re: Oracle, anyone?
* Dennis S.Davidoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051205 03:23]: Monday, December 5, 2005, 12:49:21 AM, you wrote: FP Has anyone got Oracle 10g working on OpenBSD 3.8? FP What is the general consensus of running Oracle on OpenBSD? Bad idea, use Linux instead. Incidentally, I ask audience, have anyone port oracle7 client (API) like in FreeBSD? :) I don't need Oracle on OpenBSD, but an libraries to build perl DBD::Oracle. I've got oracle7 from FreeBSD and install DBD::Oracle, but after that I've got a problem while running script that only connects to Oracle: /usr/bin/perl: /usr/local/libdata/perl5/site_perl/i386-openbsd/auto/DBD/Oracle/Oracle.so: can't resolve reference '_DefaultRuneLocale' /usr/bin/perl: /usr/local/libdata/perl5/site_perl/i386-openbsd/auto/DBD/Oracle/Oracle.so: can't resolve reference '_CurrentRuneLocale' Segmentation fault (core dumped) -- Sincerely, Dennis I would be very happy to see a native Oracle client for OpenBSD. Fat chance of it happening. I poked Oracle on metalink and got nowhere faster than I did explaining my need for RAID documentation to Adaptec. I would be thrilled to see a FreeTNS project spawn similar to the FreeTDS project. That would solve our problem quite nicely. Jim
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:43:18 -0500 (EST), Joseph C. Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, J.C. Roberts wrote: On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:57:15 -0700, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone has a viable need of Oracle products, it's in their best interest to get it running on OpenBSD. Why? Going off into unsupported territory where there's probably 10 other shops in the world doing the same thing (i.e. lack of community) will mean chasing down lots and lots of issues yourself with very few resources to turn to. Communities often start with one idea and one person willing to do some work. If everyone based their decision on whether or not there are other people out there with similar interests and effort, new things would never be started. Sure, you're right that many people are primarily interested in getting supposed support from Oracle but forcibly drop kicking Oracle software onto OpenBSD will most likely allow you to find a lot of Oracle bugs. Or a lot of Linux emulation bugs. Or bugs in the linux lib packages triggered by the kernel emulation. Linux emulation + non-native libs + lack of documented issues = lots of variables that are going to make it a royal pain to troubleshoot problems. You certainly have a valid point when it comes to doing useful production work with Oracle on OpenBSD but from what you've written, it seems like you do not value the bug finding process all that much. My opinion is the exact opposite; the main reason for attempting such a configuration *_is_* to find the bugs and hopefully fix them. Sure, you're right it's a royal pain, but if no one does the work, it never gets done. If you've got enough $ for Oracle Inc to think you're important, they might actually consider fixing the bugs you report. If you've got that much cash to persuade them to do that, you might as well go whole-hog and have them do a native port. And if you have that much cash, you're probably looking at running Oracle on $very_large_hardware that OpenBSD doesn't support yet. Yep, you're totally right on the above. If your only goal is putting Oracle on OpenBSD in production and you have the money to pay for all the work, then you can probably make it happen. If Oracle software is too broken to run properly on OpenBSD and Oracle refuses to fix their bugs (i.e. failure to actually support their products), then you might want to reconsider your choice of software to see if there are other alternatives available. If there's no native port, there is no running properly, period. Even if their software was buggy, how can Oracle be reasonably expected to fix bugs on a system that is more or less rigged with the software equivalent of duct tape and baling wire? When you're starting off, duct tape and bailing wire are your best friends mainly because there is no other way to get going. You can kind of think of it as boot strapping. It's not going to happen over night or anytime soon. As for expecting anything from Oracle, well, even if *you* are convinced it is in their best interest to fix their bugs, it doesn't mean the decision makers at the company will be convinced. The most you can do is document your setup and findings so others can repeat your tests. In a nutshell, it comes down to your goals and your time frame. If you want the Oracle code you run to be more reliable, robust and secure on $very_large_hardware that OpenBSD doesn't support yet just using OpenBSD to find some bugs could be a worthwhile experiment even if you never actually use OBSD/Oracle in production. A lot of companies would consider such efforts to be a waste of time/money but as you can see by this thread, there are some people who think the task might be a fun or interesting hack... -You can view it as the difference between those people who follow the warning on the sticker Warranty Void If Removed and those people who are more interested in learning what can be learned. That being said, if OpenBSD is a requirement, then change the database to something nice and not so bloated like PostGres. Then at least it'll native compile. Yes. And I think we will both agree the decision of what to use in production really comes down to the requirements. On the other hand, I think if a company really values the data they store in their production Oracle db's, financing a bit of experimentation to find/fix bugs is in the best interest of company long term. I think the best way you could understand my view on the whole Oracle/OBSD thing is by analogy... The OpenBSD port to the SGI-O2 platform has been ongoing for some time and even after almost 2 years of work, the port is still incomplete since we don't have an X server. None the less, the O2 porting effort has allowed new types and classes of bugs to be found mainly because the bugs have not shown up on other architectures. Fixing the newly discovered bugs benefits all the supported architectures. Since you don't have
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 09:49:21PM +, Frank Parsons wrote: Has anyone got Oracle 10g working on OpenBSD 3.8? What is the general consensus of running Oracle on OpenBSD? Don't bother. Run it on Linux instead, and make sure you use the distro Oracle approves of or expect things to break. (whatever that is this week) In my expereince it runs better on Solaris than anything else because there is only one Solaris distribution to choose. Since this isn't an Oracle list I'm not going to get into the technical reasons why this is so important. You might also try postgres since it does almost everything Oracle does and in a lot of ways it sucks less. And it runs great on OpenBSD.
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, J.C. Roberts wrote: You certainly have a valid point when it comes to doing useful production work with Oracle on OpenBSD but from what you've written, it seems like you do not value the bug finding process all that much. You could not be more wrong. Do *not* presume that you may assume what I do or do not value. I just got done rewriting a bunch of the logging code in tinyproxy because the bug in that case happened to be extremely verbose logging because the original writers didn't understand using the software in a 1000+ user environment. My opinion is the exact opposite; the main reason for attempting such a configuration *_is_* to find the bugs and hopefully fix them. Sure, you're right it's a royal pain, but if no one does the work, it never gets done. Yes, but there's fixing bugs you can get at, and there's the banging of one's head against a brick wall created from running a closed source package in an *emulated* environment. When you're starting off, duct tape and bailing wire are your best friends mainly because there is no other way to get going. You can kind of think of it as boot strapping. It's not going to happen over night or anytime soon. You're not getting it. It's not bootstrapping, it's a gross, ugly, nasty hack. This is not making a port work, this is kludging something into functioning when a much better effort could be made on other platforms or by using other database packages. In a nutshell, it comes down to your goals and your time frame. If you want the Oracle code you run to be more reliable, robust and secure on $very_large_hardware that OpenBSD doesn't support yet just using OpenBSD to find some bugs could be a worthwhile experiment even if you never actually use OBSD/Oracle in production. This only works for a native port! You're not running Oracle on OpenBSD, you're running Oracle on what Oracle thinks is some wierd LINUX. A lot of companies would consider such efforts to be a waste of time/money but as you can see by this thread, there are some people who think the task might be a fun or interesting hack... -You can view it as the difference between those people who follow the warning on the sticker Warranty Void If Removed and those people who are more interested in learning what can be learned. And some people think drilling holes in their head leads to some deep inner wisdom. This does not make it a good idea. If someone wants to use *linux emulation* to run Oracle on OpenBSD and think it's doing some good, they can go right ahead. I've been there and done that with trying to hack evil crap into working in places it shouldn't, and all I've learned is that it leads to nothing but a ton of pain. Some people need object lessons in said pain before it sinks in. Their call, I guess. I'd rather work on something more useful or interesting. Yes. And I think we will both agree the decision of what to use in production really comes down to the requirements. On the other hand, I think if a company really values the data they store in their production Oracle db's, financing a bit of experimentation to find/fix bugs is in the best interest of company long term. Again, you think this will lead to bugfixes. I marvel at your raw idealism. I think the best way you could understand my view on the whole Oracle/OBSD thing is by analogy... The OpenBSD port to the SGI-O2 platform has been ongoing for some time and even after almost 2 years of work, the port is still incomplete since we don't have an X server. None the less, the O2 porting effort has allowed new types and classes of bugs to be found mainly because the bugs have not shown up on other architectures. Fixing the newly discovered bugs benefits all the supported architectures. Since you don't have X, you can't use your O2 as a production desktop yet but the porting effort has still been beneficial to the project as a whole, including all the folks who only use other archs. Your analogy is flawed. The discovered bugs are actively used by the OpenBSD devs to fix. As you yourself have even asserted, there's a pretty good chance that Oracle would probably ignore the bug reports, and given that it'd be coming from an environment that is nowhere near the intended platforms that they coded for, I wouldn't blame them. -- Signing off, Joseph C. Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master. ---Thomas Jefferson
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 09:49:21PM +, Frank Parsons wrote: Has anyone got Oracle 10g working on OpenBSD 3.8? What is the general consensus of running Oracle on OpenBSD? I have no experience with Oracle, but if you are going to be running insecure software, why not choose a better-performing platform? Oracle will require extensive filtering anyway (see: full-disclosure postings on Oracle, for instance), so you might as well choose the platform that will give you the best performance, which is unlikely to be OpenBSD. FreeBSD will be OpenBSD-ish enough not to kill you, and likely give you better performance and better compatibility; and it's secure enough that it will not add much to the hole that Oracle already is. Joachim
Re: Oracle, anyone?
Run Oracle ONLY on the supported platforms! http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/database/oracle10g/index.html Ioan Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/2005 09:14:25 am On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 09:49:21PM +, Frank Parsons wrote: Has anyone got Oracle 10g working on OpenBSD 3.8? What is the general consensus of running Oracle on OpenBSD? I have no experience with Oracle, but if you are going to be running insecure software, why not choose a better-performing platform? Oracle will require extensive filtering anyway (see: full-disclosure postings on Oracle, for instance), so you might as well choose the platform that will give you the best performance, which is unlikely to be OpenBSD. FreeBSD will be OpenBSD-ish enough not to kill you, and likely give you better performance and better compatibility; and it's secure enough that it will not add much to the hole that Oracle already is. Joachim http://www.netcleanse.com
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On 12/4/05, Ioan Nemes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Run Oracle ONLY on the supported platforms! http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/database/oracle10g/index.html huh? why would you say that?
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:12:10 -0800, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/4/05, Ioan Nemes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Run Oracle ONLY on the supported platforms! http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/database/oracle10g/index.html huh? why would you say that? im pretty sure the easiest answer to that is: a. its closed source. 2. you JUST might not have a choice c. he is expecting you to NOT be a complete moron 4. you JUST might cause yourself more problems in the future e. your NOT going to get support from oracle 6. your NOT going to get support from this mailing list g. you WILL turn into a support-hunting troll 1 day before you get fired for being a moron. - Zac
Re: Oracle, anyone?
Running oracle on any unsupported platform is probably not the best idea, not only because you won't get support, but also because running it on a more secure platform will still leave you with lots of holes; in other words, you're going to need something in front of the box to protect it anyway. Of course, the more layers of defense, the better is an excellent mantra, but unfortunately much of the time there are considerations other than just security. OpenBSD is written for uses where freedom, stability, adherence to standards, and security are the top concerns (and things like performance, or accessibility to those who are only interested in reading their email and nothing else, for instance, aren't as high on the list). If having support is a concern, or if being able to get it up and running more or less quickly is a concern, OpenBSD isn't the platform for Oracle. They've got lots of little things they do in their installer to make sure you're running a platform they like (for instance, Fedora (an unsupported platform) is almost identical to RedHat Advanced Server (a supported platform), yet by default Oracle won't install on it (specifically because it checks RedHat's /etc/redhat-release file to see what system it's being installed on). In short, there likely will be lots of little work-arounds you'll have to deal with to get the install to work in the first place. All that being said, should lack of support, the extra time it will take, and the other issues that have been brought up not be issues for you, 1) lucky you, and 2) I for one would be very interested in whether or not you get it working. -Josh
Re: Oracle, anyone?
Josh, Agreed on all points. Oracle also likes to tie releases of their database to specific versions of Linux, not just platform types. I had that issue with 8i Release 2 on Red Hat. However, Oracle does have instructions available on their Metalink support site for installing on FreeBSD. Oracle does have its issues in terms of network security, and especially because they charge large amount of money to even allow you to authenticate via an LDAP or Kerberos server (Oracle Advanced Security). OpenBSD works best in a complementary role in an Oracle environment, especially due to pf and IPSec. However, I'd like to see if it would even work on OpenBSD. I would never run Oracle 10g on OpenBSD in production. However, I'll continue to run other things on it :). Thanks, Mitch On 12/4/05 11:57 PM, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Running oracle on any unsupported platform is probably not the best idea, not only because you won't get support, but also because running it on a more secure platform will still leave you with lots of holes; in other words, you're going to need something in front of the box to protect it anyway. Of course, the more layers of defense, the better is an excellent mantra, but unfortunately much of the time there are considerations other than just security. OpenBSD is written for uses where freedom, stability, adherence to standards, and security are the top concerns (and things like performance, or accessibility to those who are only interested in reading their email and nothing else, for instance, aren't as high on the list). If having support is a concern, or if being able to get it up and running more or less quickly is a concern, OpenBSD isn't the platform for Oracle. They've got lots of little things they do in their installer to make sure you're running a platform they like (for instance, Fedora (an unsupported platform) is almost identical to RedHat Advanced Server (a supported platform), yet by default Oracle won't install on it (specifically because it checks RedHat's /etc/redhat-release file to see what system it's being installed on). In short, there likely will be lots of little work-arounds you'll have to deal with to get the install to work in the first place. All that being said, should lack of support, the extra time it will take, and the other issues that have been brought up not be issues for you, 1) lucky you, and 2) I for one would be very interested in whether or not you get it working. -Josh
Re: Oracle, anyone?
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:57:15 -0700, Josh Tolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OpenBSD is written for uses where freedom, stability, adherence to standards, and security are the top concerns You are pontificating your personal opinions on why OpenBSD is written and what OpenBSD is used for to Ted Unangst? bahahahaha! You were just joking, right? Ted happens to be one of the guys responsible for writing OpenBSD, so you'd probably be much better off *asking* Ted why OpenBSD is written and what its uses are. If someone has a viable need of Oracle products, it's in their best interest to get it running on OpenBSD. Sure, you're right that many people are primarily interested in getting supposed support from Oracle but forcibly drop kicking Oracle software onto OpenBSD will most likely allow you to find a lot of Oracle bugs. If you've got enough $ for Oracle Inc to think you're important, they might actually consider fixing the bugs you report. If Oracle software is too broken to run properly on OpenBSD and Oracle refuses to fix their bugs (i.e. failure to actually support their products), then you might want to reconsider your choice of software to see if there are other alternatives available. When you've got pathetic megalomaniac like Larry The Liar Ellison shooting his mouth off about how Oracle is Unbreakable when it's clearly broken, you'd be wise to stay clear of his products. JCR
