Le mardi 19 avril 2005 Ã 19:59 +0200, Arjan van de Ven a Ãcrit : > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 19:34 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 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. > > which is why you join the RH developers program.... ;) > > please take rhel rants to a rhel mailinglist. I'm only reporting what RH people told me about a year ago (you shall shell out a license per system you use to help RH sell its stuff). If RH has come to its senses since so much for the better. But last time I looked you had lots of reasons to try to run Oracle on something other than RHEL -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
