f



Mac OS X & Mac OS X Server

Hi,

I'm currently using a 9i developer release on Mac OS X (10.3) which has 
proved very stable so far. My understanding of the various Oracle press 
releases is that 10G will be released for Mac OS X, are there any beta 
testers out there wiling to comment on availabilitu/quality/performance 
issues for 10G on Mac OS X?

Another question is whether tools such as the OEM will be available in 10G 
for Mac OS X, does anybody know?

Yours in anticipation!

Steve
0
steve490 (64)
1/30/2004 8:34:56 AM
comp.databases.oracle.server 22978 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

14 Replies
3163 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 53

Steve <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004013008345616807%steve@nospamcom>...

> releases is that 10G will be released for Mac OS X, are there any beta 
> testers out there wiling to comment on availabilitu/quality/performance 
> issues for 10G on Mac OS X?

The PR suggests they've been clear that the OS X release will be
production quality .. though since it won't be a "volume" platform,
one may wonder about this in practise.

> Another question is whether tools such as the OEM will be available in 10G 
> for Mac OS X, does anybody know?

From what I've seen of screenshots, I believe OEM 10g is web-based
JSP, so this seems likely.  But just my inference, no real info.

I use  remote OEM from another box on my Powerbook for now (either
XWindows or Windows Remote Desktop).  SQL Plus otherwise..

Cheers
Stu
0
stuartc (14)
2/2/2004 4:45:43 PM
stuartc@mac.com (Stu Charlton) wrote in message news:<21398ab6.0402020845.4f2c5027@posting.google.com>...
> Steve <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004013008345616807%steve@nospamcom>...
> 
> > releases is that 10G will be released for Mac OS X, are there any beta 
> > testers out there wiling to comment on availabilitu/quality/performance 
> > issues for 10G on Mac OS X?
> 
> The PR suggests they've been clear that the OS X release will be
> production quality .. though since it won't be a "volume" platform,
> one may wonder about this in practise.
> 
> > Another question is whether tools such as the OEM will be available in 10G 
> > for Mac OS X, does anybody know?
> 
> From what I've seen of screenshots, I believe OEM 10g is web-based
> JSP, so this seems likely.  But just my inference, no real info.
> 
> I use  remote OEM from another box on my Powerbook for now (either
> XWindows or Windows Remote Desktop).  SQL Plus otherwise..
> 
> Cheers
> Stu

this seems to be counter-intuive to me.
Oracle has released ZERO products for ANY BSD distribution.
Not NetBSD, OpenBSD (wouldn't they want to run Trusted Oracle on
OpenBSD?) and not FreeBSD, with reportedly the fastest TCP/IP stack
out there.
No long ago, there were many more FreeBSD web servers in use (running
Apache, of course) that Linux web servers.
For Oracle to ignore the BSD market for so long, and then release a
product (for real, not this float some beta stuff out there for 8.1.6,
8.1.7, 9.2.0) for Mac OS X?

guess I'll never understand marketing.

Pd
0
drak0nian (276)
2/3/2004 4:25:55 PM
drak0nian@yahoo.com (Paul Drake) wrote in message news:<1ac7c7b3.0402030825.7590fc21@posting.google.com>...


> Oracle has released ZERO products for ANY BSD distribution.
> Not NetBSD, OpenBSD (wouldn't they want to run Trusted Oracle on
> OpenBSD?) and not FreeBSD, with reportedly the fastest TCP/IP stack
> out there.

I can verify this.  Mac OS X's Darwin core is based on FreeBSD code. 
The TCP/IP transfer rates I get are unbelievable - a 120 KB/sec
transfer from download-east or download-west.oracle.com on a Windows
box will hit 350+ KB/sec on my Powerbook when I set them up
head-to-head.  At first I thought it was the Gigabit Ethernet port,
but then I used a PC with a giga port.. and saw the same results.

> guess I'll never understand marketing.

Larry was on Apple's board of directors for some time (no longer, I
don't believe - Al Gore replaced him).  But he's still friends with
Steve-o, so.... there's probably a small number of people dedicated to
making it work.

From a marketing perspective, I can kind of see it as a "novelty
platform".  In the shoe store I used to work at, they had a pair of
Snake-skinned and Ostrich-skinned cowboy boots for sale, for between
CDN $450 to 950+.  Not that anyone really ever bought a pair, maybe
one every two or three years - but it sure drew onlookers to the boots
area.

Cheers
Stu
0
stuartc (14)
2/4/2004 3:58:38 AM
stuartc@mac.com (Stu Charlton) wrote in message news:<21398ab6.0402031958.28120b2f@posting.google.com>...
> drak0nian@yahoo.com (Paul Drake) wrote in message news:<1ac7c7b3.0402030825.7590fc21@posting.google.com>...
> 
> 
> > Oracle has released ZERO products for ANY BSD distribution.
> > Not NetBSD, OpenBSD (wouldn't they want to run Trusted Oracle on
> > OpenBSD?) and not FreeBSD, with reportedly the fastest TCP/IP stack
> > out there.
> 
> I can verify this.  Mac OS X's Darwin core is based on FreeBSD code. 
> The TCP/IP transfer rates I get are unbelievable - a 120 KB/sec
> transfer from download-east or download-west.oracle.com on a Windows
> box will hit 350+ KB/sec on my Powerbook when I set them up
> head-to-head.  At first I thought it was the Gigabit Ethernet port,
> but then I used a PC with a giga port.. and saw the same results.
> 
> > guess I'll never understand marketing.
> 
> Larry was on Apple's board of directors for some time (no longer, I
> don't believe - Al Gore replaced him).  But he's still friends with
> Steve-o, so.... there's probably a small number of people dedicated to
> making it work.
> 
> From a marketing perspective, I can kind of see it as a "novelty
> platform".  In the shoe store I used to work at, they had a pair of
> Snake-skinned and Ostrich-skinned cowboy boots for sale, for between
> CDN $450 to 950+.  Not that anyone really ever bought a pair, maybe
> one every two or three years - but it sure drew onlookers to the boots
> area.
> 
> Cheers
> Stu

good luck getting bug fixes and patchsets.

Pd
0
drak0nian (276)
2/4/2004 6:47:22 AM
> good luck getting bug fixes and patchsets.

To me, the only real use of OS X as an Oracle platform is that I could
install Oracle client software on that platform. I'd never run the RDMS
on a Mac, but I sure would like some of the Mac desktops at my company
to be able to connect to the database.

HTH,
Brian

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba@remove_spam.peasland.com

Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
 the three"
0
dba1 (382)
2/4/2004 2:07:56 PM
Brian Peasland <dba@remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message news:<4020FCBC.7E85B2F3@remove_spam.peasland.com>...
> > good luck getting bug fixes and patchsets.
> 
> To me, the only real use of OS X as an Oracle platform is that I could
> install Oracle client software on that platform. I'd never run the RDMS
> on a Mac, but I sure would like some of the Mac desktops at my company
> to be able to connect to the database.
> 
> HTH,
> Brian
> 
> Brian Peasland
> dba@remove_spam.peasland.com

Brian,

I could not agree more.

Paul


ok, I can't resist. 
Here goes.

caution: anti-mac troll

Create a Hoax, Earn Damnation 
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,62157,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

enjoy.
0
drak0nian (276)
2/5/2004 12:16:19 AM
It seems that some of you find the idea of a Mac running Oracle vaguely 
amusing! I'm a self employed IT consultant (UK based) and at present 
I'm working for a large utility company (gas, water and electricity) 
whose systems are Oracle based running on AIX and Linux (Red Hat).

The systems are outsourced and "system level" access to the databases 
and their operating environments is very limited. Several of the 
projects I've worked on have required me to either provide proof of 
concepts or develop fully featured reporting type applications, some of 
which required small standalone databases to operate. All of this work 
was/is performed an Apple iBook (800MHz G4 processor with 640MB RAM) 
because: -

1.	Mac OS X is basically UNIX with a pretty face, and is rock solid, 
and any scripts etc. I produce can be easily moved to the production 
UNIX and Linux environments.
2.	The web front end was easy to develop and test because the default 
web server in Mac OS X in Apache, just like on the production 
environments.
4.	I can run Microsoft Office and connect easily to the Windows and 
UNIX environments (including Cisco VPN and Citrix servers), this makes 
the production of documentation and presentations very straightforward 
as everything is on the same platform.
5.	The Developer release of Oracle 9.2 for Mac OS X has been VERY 
stable and I've got several development databases running happily on 
the iBook, and once again everything can be moved easily to the 
producition environments.

Whilst I'm not suggesting the iBook is a suitable production 
environment (!), the Apple XServe G5 is a serious server architecture 
which has gained much respect to date(see 
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/macos/story/0,10801,89682,00.html), 
indeed I can quote Oracle "The power of the new Xserve G5 and the 
flexibility of Oracle Database 10g running on Apple?s UNIX-based Mac OS 
X Server will deliver our joint customers a very compelling, 
cost-effective, scalable and reliable database solution" (see 
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/06quotes.html).

As an intro to the G5, the worlds third fastest (and cheapest) 
super-computer is made from PowerMac G5s, soon to be upgraded to XServe 
G5s, see 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=2&u=/nm/20040127/tc_nm/tech_virginiatech_apple_dc 
and http://www.apple.com/education/science/profiles/vatech/.

If you're a UNIX bod using Oracle I humbly suggest that you take a peek 
at Mac OS X, you might be pleasantly surprised!

Steve


On 2004-02-05 00:16:19 +0000, drak0nian@yahoo.com (Paul Drake) said:

> Brian Peasland <dba@remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message 
> news:<4020FCBC.7E85B2F3@remove_spam.peasland.com>...
> > > good luck getting bug fixes and patchsets.
> > 
> > To me, the only real use of OS X as an Oracle platform is that I 
> > could
> > install Oracle client software on that platform. I'd never run the 
> > RDMS
> > on a Mac, but I sure would like some of the Mac desktops at my 
> > company
> > to be able to connect to the database.
> > 
> > HTH,
> > Brian
> > 
> > Brian Peasland
> > dba@remove_spam.peasland.com
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I could not agree more.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> ok, I can't resist. 
> Here goes.
> 
> caution: anti-mac troll
> 
> Create a Hoax, Earn Damnation 
> http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,62157,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
> 
> enjoy.


0
steve490 (64)
2/7/2004 2:06:52 PM
Steve Haunch <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004020714065212655%steve@nospamcom>...
> It seems that some of you find the idea of a Mac running Oracle vaguely 
> amusing! 

8.1.6 port attempted. nothing shipped.
8.1.7 beta announced (Bob Shimp). nothing shipped.
9.2.0 developer release did ship, not a full release.

If you have dealt with trying to get patchsets and bug fixes out of
Oracle for a platform not on Tier 1 support (like win32) you would
likely shy away from such an operating system.

I don't know where Mac OS X fits in as far as the Tier that Oracle
considers it to be. I do know where HP/UX, Solaris Sparc and Linux
are. I know where win32 has been - a distant port.

The GUI of the Oracle Server operating system is interesting to me
only as far as running the Oracle Universal Installer. Beyond that,
the command line and sqlplus from my workstation are sufficient (or
whatever 3rd party tools you run from your management workstation).

What business requirement are you satisfying by specifying a Mac OS X
Server?
most likely your own agenda.

Hi. My name is Paul, and I hate macs.

Pd
0
drak0nian (276)
2/7/2004 7:23:34 PM
drak0nian@yahoo.com (Paul Drake) wrote in message news:<1ac7c7b3.0402071123.30d5067d@posting.google.com>...

> If you have dealt with trying to get patchsets and bug fixes out of
> Oracle for a platform not on Tier 1 support (like win32) you would
> likely shy away from such an operating system.

Assuming Oracle continues to behave this way (and there's no reason to
believe otherwise), I'm in full agreement.

> The GUI of the Oracle Server operating system is interesting to me
> only as far as running the Oracle Universal Installer. Beyond that,
> the command line and sqlplus from my workstation are sufficient (or
> whatever 3rd party tools you run from your management workstation).

Well, OEM seems to be getting more important as the releases get more
cluster/grid oriented.   Though OEM for 10g seems to be web-based, if
I recall the screenshots I've seen, which means the platform won't
really matter to much.

> What business requirement are you satisfying by specifying a Mac OS X
> Server?
> most likely your own agenda.

Yeah, pretty much.  Then again, a lot of hardware decisions - in
companies large & small - are made based on personal agendas, from
what I've seen.

Anyway. I think OSXS might be appropriate for small companies'
web/file/print serving, but it doesn't belong in a larger company's
data centre yet...

Cheers
Stu
0
stuartc (14)
2/7/2004 11:55:22 PM
drak0nian@yahoo.com (Paul Drake) wrote in message news:<1ac7c7b3.0402071123.30d5067d@posting.google.com>...
> Steve Haunch <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004020714065212655%steve@nospamcom>...
> > It seems that some of you find the idea of a Mac running Oracle vaguely 
> > amusing! 
> 
> 8.1.6 port attempted. nothing shipped.
> 8.1.7 beta announced (Bob Shimp). nothing shipped.
> 9.2.0 developer release did ship, not a full release.

Digging in the 10g docs and scripts and I did not find a single bit of
evidence about the promised macosX port. It's 3 flavours of linux, 4
windows, solaris, hpux, aix and tru64. Those are the platforms that
the new oem agents are certified to. In oraenv there is an 'others' in
the code that set platform dependend variables so macosX could be in
there ...

best regards,
Ronald.
--------------
http://ronr.nl
0
devnull2 (167)
2/9/2004 4:04:27 PM
Paul, have you ever owned/used a Mac for an extended period of time? 
Please tell me you are not one of the ignorant PC majority.  The G5
servers are serious hardware for average database applications!  Would
I run a data warehouse on it?  Hell no.

If OSX gets Tier 1 attention from Oracle, it is worth looking at.  The
IT conservatives will always bash it.  Kinda like they are at my
workplace for bringing Linux in to replace their old HP-UX junk-heap.
0
2/10/2004 7:14:27 AM
> It seems that some of you find the idea of a Mac running Oracle vaguely
> amusing! 

Not amusing at all. Mac systems are fine systems. However, they are few
and far between in most IT shops. So supporting them can be difficult at
times. This is especially true when trying to get 3rd party software to
work. And as far as Mac systems are concerned, Oracle client software is
a 3rd party application. If the 3rd party vendor won't support the
platform, how can we? And as I said, I really could care less that
Oracle is now supporting the OS X platform for the RDBMS software. There
is no way I'd run Oracle on OS X similar to the fact that I wouldn't run
Oracle on a Windows desktop. However, I do need the Oracle client
software to run on OS X so that the few people who use Macs that I do
have to support can connect to the database.

Personally, most database applications should be application server
based with a very thin client on the front end. This way, Macs, Linux
desktops, Windows, whatever can use the app, provided the very thin
client is for that platform. But not every application can be deployed
that way.

Cheers,
Brian

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba@remove_spam.peasland.com

Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
 the three"
0
dba1 (382)
2/10/2004 3:04:34 PM
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:16:19 +0800, Paul Drake wrote
(in article <1ac7c7b3.0402041616.2cc6e9bd@posting.google.com>):

> Brian Peasland <dba@remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message 
> news:<4020FCBC.7E85B2F3@remove_spam.peasland.com>...
>>> good luck getting bug fixes and patchsets.
>> 
>> To me, the only real use of OS X as an Oracle platform is that I could
>> install Oracle client software on that platform. I'd never run the RDMS
>> on a Mac, but I sure would like some of the Mac desktops at my company
>> to be able to connect to the database.
>> 
>> HTH,
>> Brian
>> 
>> Brian Peasland
>> dba@remove_spam.peasland.com
> 
> Brian,
> 
> I could not agree more.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> ok, I can't resist. 
> Here goes.
> 
> caution: anti-mac troll
> 
> Create a Hoax, Earn Damnation 
> http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,62157,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
> 
> enjoy.

so why can you not use an osx mac client?  

I do.

steve


0
me7582 (401)
2/12/2004 10:16:19 PM
steve <me@me.com> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BC521C3300029B4AF05095B0@news.newsguy.com>...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:16:19 +0800, Paul Drake wrote
> (in article <1ac7c7b3.0402041616.2cc6e9bd@posting.google.com>):
> 
> > Brian Peasland <dba@remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote in message 
> > news:<4020FCBC.7E85B2F3@remove_spam.peasland.com>...
> >>> good luck getting bug fixes and patchsets.
> >> 
> >> To me, the only real use of OS X as an Oracle platform is that I could
> >> install Oracle client software on that platform. I'd never run the RDMS
> >> on a Mac, but I sure would like some of the Mac desktops at my company
> >> to be able to connect to the database.
> >> 
> >> HTH,
> >> Brian
> >> 
> >> Brian Peasland
> >> dba@remove_spam.peasland.com
> > 
> > Brian,
> > 
> > I could not agree more.
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > ok, I can't resist. 
> > Here goes.
> > 
> > caution: anti-mac troll
> > 
> > Create a Hoax, Earn Damnation 
> > http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,62157,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
> > 
> > enjoy.
> 
> so why can you not use an osx mac client?  
> 
> I do.
> 
> steve

dude, go for it.
that has absolutely nothing do with what OS the server is running on
the database instance that you are connecting to.

for everyone else, sorry about the worthless post.

Pd
0
drak0nian (276)
2/14/2004 3:58:44 AM
Reply: