I totally agree with you. =A0We are now back in the dark ages (version =
with Oracle software releases. They are shipping trash out the door as =
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 =
patch software correctly.
And they want us to install this stuff monthly? What's worse - the =
risk that "might" hit us, or the multiple patches we have to apply to =
up their mistakes?
From: Mladen Gogala =20
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:58 AM
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.
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 22.214.171.124 bugs on Linux unequivocally show =
that Oracle is sharing
the burden of regression testing with its esteemed customers:
RDBMS Server: Patch
[LINUX RAC] APPLYING PSR 126.96.36.199 INSTALLS OLDER VERSION CLUSTER MANAGER =
RDBMS Server: Patch
INS_OEMAGENT.MK IS NOT USING THE GLIBC STUBS
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 =
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. =
the ones that are no longer
supported. May the force be with noble souls who have put 10g in =