Le lundi 18 avril 2005 Ã 22:18 +1000, Russell Coker a Ãcrit : > On Friday 01 April 2005 05:56, Roland KÃser <roli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel in > > > > a 2.6 Xen host. > > Have You ever tried to install a Oracle 9 on "modern" fedora release? I > > can sing some songs about this crap. (The oracle not the Fedora). > > Why would you want to run Oracle on Fedora? RHEL costs much less than Oracle > and will make things much easier for you. > > You might ask whether a RHEL3 update for Xen will be released (RHEL3 was 2.4 > based while RHEL4 is 2.6 based). But it's not a question for this list. If you are a dev shop building apps on top of Oracle (apps that will then be sold to wealthy corporations that will shell $$$$ for Oracle licenses) Oracle will let you install as many Oracle setups as you like (they realise this helps selling their products) If you want to host these free developer instances on RHEL Red Hat will enforce through up2date a full license per dev/test system. When the hardware is liberated intel/amd, Oracle is free, a RHEL license is not something taken lightly. Especially if you try to optimise hardware occupation by having multiple separate system images (one for every Oracle version you want to support, for example) and RHN wants to charge you one license per system image (even though they are all on the same physical hardware and can not be run separately) Now since you can't run RHEL, you will run FC or Centos or whatever. But once you've qualified your product on this other Linux version, how long do you think it will take some beancounter to realise you can sell your product on this other Linux system, and avoid paying RH altogether ? (remember, less $$$ for RH = more customer $$$ available for your part of the system) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
