FAQ
Does anyone know 9ir2 and 10G desupport date? I
checked Metalink and can NOT find it.

Thanks.



Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Search Discussions

  • Niall Litchfield at Apr 6, 2005 at 8:42 am
    9.2 July 1st 2007
    10.1 Feb 1st 2009

    per Oracle support presentation to UKOUG DBMS sig.

    I personally wouldn't pay a huge amount of attention to the 10g date
    yet, but the 9.2 one looks reasonable.
  • Christian Antognini at Apr 6, 2005 at 9:29 am
    Hi
    Does anyone know 9ir2 and 10G desupport date? I
    checked Metalink and can NOT find it.
    Check Metalink note 161818.1.

    HTH

    Chris
  • Tim Gorman at Apr 11, 2005 at 11:28 pm
    Oracle software isn't truly ready for production usage until it becomes
    desupported. When they stop making changes, it's ready.

    Sorry -- meds ran out over the weekend...

    on 4/6/05 7:25 AM, Christian Antognini at Christian.Antognini_at_trivadis.com
    wrote:
    Hi
    Does anyone know 9ir2 and 10G desupport date? I
    checked Metalink and can NOT find it.
    Check Metalink note 161818.1.


    HTH
    Chris
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Mladen Gogala at Apr 12, 2005 at 10:01 am

    Tim Gorman wrote:
    Oracle software isn't truly ready for production usage until it becomes
    desupported. When they stop making changes, it's ready.
    Speaking of that, has anyone noticed the absence of Mr. Peter R.
    Sharman? He is usually very
    kind and quick to clarify Oracle policies. I must say that I am
    frightened of all those bugs which
    can yield a wrong result or result in an instance termination. Is it
    just me or Oracle has scrapped
    QA to reduce cost? Some of the 9.2.0.6 bugs on Linux unequivocally show
    that Oracle is sharing
    the burden of regression testing with its esteemed customers:

    4063079
    <http://updates.oracle.com/ARULink/PatchDetails/process_form?patch_num=4063079&release=8092060&plat_lang=46P&email=mgogala%40allegientsystems.com&userid=MGOGALA&>
    RDBMS Server: Patch
    [LINUX RAC] APPLYING PSR 9.2.0.6 INSTALLS OLDER VERSION CLUSTER MANAGER

    (ORACM)

    3119415
    <http://updates.oracle.com/ARULink/PatchDetails/process_form?patch_num=3119415&release=8092060&plat_lang=46P&email=mgogala%40allegientsystems.com&userid=MGOGALA&>
    RDBMS Server: Patch
    INS_OEMAGENT.MK IS NOT USING THE GLIBC STUBS

    3984255
    <http://updates.oracle.com/ARULink/PatchDetails/process_form?patch_num=3984255&release=8092060&plat_lang=46P&email=mgogala%40allegientsystems.com&userid=MGOGALA&>
    Oracle Database Family: Patch
    APPSST9206: OH/LIB/LIBCXA.SO.3 MISSING IN INSTALLATION OF 9206

    The only possible conclusion after seeing these bugs is that Oracle
    doesn't really care what is packaged in
    their software releases. There are missing libraries, make files, wrong
    versions etc. Even the
    most rudimentary QA would catch those problems. Wouldn't it be better to
    just open-source
    the product? A bunch of college kids might do better job testing and it
    would certainly cut costs.
    Tim, I agree with you that the only safe products from Oracle Corp. are
    the ones that are no longer
    supported. May the force be with noble souls who have put 10g in production.

    --
    Mladen Gogala
    Oracle DBA
    Ext. 121

    --
    http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
  • Mercadante, Thomas F at Apr 12, 2005 at 10:08 am
    Mladen,

    I totally agree with you. =A0We are now back in the dark ages (version =
    6.x)
    with Oracle software releases. They are shipping trash out the door as =
    fast
    as they can. My recent favorite is the patching software (OPatch)
    introduced a bug that had to be patched by hand. They can't even =
    release
    patch software correctly.

    And they want us to install this stuff monthly? What's worse - the =
    security
    risk that "might" hit us, or the multiple patches we have to apply to =
    clean
    up their mistakes?

    Tom
    =20
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mladen Gogala =20
    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:58 AM
    To: tim_at_evdbt.com
    Cc: oracle-L_at_freelists.org
    Subject: Re: 9ir2 desupport date???

    Tim Gorman wrote:
    Oracle software isn't truly ready for production usage until it = becomes
    desupported. When they stop making changes, it's ready.
    =20
    Speaking of that, has anyone noticed the absence of Mr. Peter R.=20
    Sharman? He is usually very
    kind and quick to clarify Oracle policies. I must say that I am=20
    frightened of all those bugs which
    can yield a wrong result or result in an instance termination. Is it =20
    just me or Oracle has scrapped
    QA to reduce cost? Some of the 9.2.0.6 bugs on Linux unequivocally show =

    that Oracle is sharing
    the burden of regression testing with its esteemed customers:

    4063079=20
    <http://updates.oracle.com/ARULink/PatchDetails/process_form?patch_num=3D=
    40630
    79&release=3D8092060&plat_lang=3D46P&email=3Dmgogala%40allegientsystems.=
    com&userid
    =3DMGOGALA&>=20

    RDBMS Server: Patch
    [LINUX RAC] APPLYING PSR 9.2.0.6 INSTALLS OLDER VERSION CLUSTER MANAGER =

    (ORACM)

    3119415=20
    <http://updates.oracle.com/ARULink/PatchDetails/process_form?patch_num=3D=
    31194
    15&release=3D8092060&plat_lang=3D46P&email=3Dmgogala%40allegientsystems.=
    com&userid
    =3DMGOGALA&>=20

    RDBMS Server: Patch
    INS_OEMAGENT.MK IS NOT USING THE GLIBC STUBS

    3984255=20
    <http://updates.oracle.com/ARULink/PatchDetails/process_form?patch_num=3D=
    39842
    55&release=3D8092060&plat_lang=3D46P&email=3Dmgogala%40allegientsystems.=
    com&userid
    =3DMGOGALA&>=20

    Oracle Database Family: Patch
    APPSST9206: OH/LIB/LIBCXA.SO.3 MISSING IN INSTALLATION OF 9206

    The only possible conclusion after seeing these bugs is that Oracle=20
    doesn't really care what is packaged in
    their software releases. There are missing libraries, make files, wrong =

    versions etc. Even the
    most rudimentary QA would catch those problems. Wouldn't it be better =
    to=20
    just open-source
    the product? A bunch of college kids might do better job testing and it =

    would certainly cut costs.
    Tim, I agree with you that the only safe products from Oracle Corp. =
    are=20
    the ones that are no longer
    supported. May the force be with noble souls who have put 10g in =
    production.

    --=20
    Mladen Gogala
    Oracle DBA
    Ext. 121

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouporacle-l @
categoriesoracle
postedApr 6, '05 at 8:29a
activeApr 12, '05 at 10:08a
posts6
users6
websiteoracle.com

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase