[ILUG] RHEL clones

[Conor Wynne]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Conor Wynne <mariconor at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Breno Gomes <brenogomes at iolfree.ie>
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Lars Hecking wrote:
> > >>  Hi all,
> > >>
> > >>  Has anyone ever come across a situation, anecdotical or otherwise,
> > where
> > >>  commerical software, or software available binary only, that works
> > on RHEL
> > >>  does not work on a RHEL clone like CentOS with otherwise identical
> > parameters
> > >>  (OS revision, package list, patch level, hardware etc.).
> > >>
> > >>  RHEL and clones are supposed to be fully binary compatible, but
> > where is
> > >>  the proof?
> > >>
> > >>  I'm trying to assess the likelyhood of a software vendor refusing
> > support
> > >>  on the grounds that RHEL clones are not on their supported OS list.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >       Oracle (9i) is one example I've come across of where they refuse
> > (or at
> > > least, have refused in the past) support for a non-RHEL solution. I
> > have
> > > used it on CentOS, and had to slightly customise the installation
> > > scripts so that they were fooled into thinking they were being run on
> > a
> > > genuine RHEL box. The checking was mostly string matching, IIRC so it
> > > really wasn't a problem - and Oracle worked excellently on CentOS,
> > once
> > > it was installed :-)
> > >
> > >       Hope that helps.
> > >
> > >       Best regards,
> > >       -->Gar
> >
> > I agree with Gareth. Oracle has very strict dependencies. Editing the
> > installation scripts is a safe route. An alternative method is to add or
> > edit the package
> > /etc/redhat-release
> >
> > This will work for other applications as well.
> >
> > There is a patch for 10gR1 (10.1.0.3.0) available on Metalink.
> > Please be aware the support will be limited to the database only, which
> > is not an issue if you are not deploying critical production databases.
> >
> > Please feel free to send me a private message if you need more details.
> >
>
> You know I find that hilarious, Oracle costs more than your server and OS
> combined, and potentially more than your backend storage as well, yet people
> go and install it on an unsupported OS. This makes no sense to me at all.
>
> If you must use a RHEL clone, and you buy oracle retail (not OE), then why
> not go for unitedlinux instead. That way oracle are your one stop shop for
> everything.
>
> Now your server vendor won't support it, but that is another matter.
> If this is purely for testing and learning, that's another matter
> altogether.
>
>
> >
> > Breno
> > --
> >
>
> regards,
> Conor.
>

Correction, unbreakable linux I meant:
http://www.oracle.com/linux/index.html

Conor.