 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Oracle on Linux vs. SQL Server on Windows?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/eye-on-oracle/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/eye-on-oracle/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/</link>
	<description>A SearchOracle.com blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:22:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Don McLeish</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/eye-on-oracle/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/#comment-1074</link>
		<dc:creator>Don McLeish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eyeonoracle.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/20/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/#comment-1074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been a beta tester for Oracle for a while now. They have always release the Unix/Linux versions before Windows. I&#039;m guessing this is because traditionally the majority of their installations are on non-Windows platforms, or perhaps it&#039;s easier to develop in XXnix (more stable environment). But even in the beta stage, the XXnix&#039;s come out well before the Windows versions.
Larry may well want to snub MS whenever possible, but I don&#039;t think this is one of those times. IMHO.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been a beta tester for Oracle for a while now. They have always release the Unix/Linux versions before Windows. I&#8217;m guessing this is because traditionally the majority of their installations are on non-Windows platforms, or perhaps it&#8217;s easier to develop in XXnix (more stable environment). But even in the beta stage, the XXnix&#8217;s come out well before the Windows versions.<br />
Larry may well want to snub MS whenever possible, but I don&#8217;t think this is one of those times. IMHO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Fedorko</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/eye-on-oracle/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/#comment-1073</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Fedorko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eyeonoracle.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/20/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/#comment-1073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Releasing Oracle 11g on Linux before windows is a very smart move for two reasons:
  If you want to showcase the reliability, scalability and affordability of the DBMS, Linux is the platform to do it on.  
Oracle&#039;s architecture benefits greatly in an environment that can handle multiple processes, each with their own memory area.
In addition, Linux is notoriously stable (allowing for huge uptime numbers by leveraging 11g&#039;s new hot-patching) , and on a 64 bit machine, the resource cielings are ridiculously high.  Simply put, Oracle can reap more impressive numbers on Linux.
  The other reason relates to where the growth will come from.  Budget concious CIOs are beginning to realize the money pit that is OS licensing.  If your capital replacement cycle isn&#039;t tied into a migration to Linux, you&#039;ll have similar migration issues, AND have substantial licensing fees.  Legacy systems may stick with SQL Server or Oracle on windows, but Oracle is positioning itself to catch all of the new Business Area expantions, replacement cycle implementations &amp; migrations.
  In summary, debuting 11g on Linux was the right answer.  11g will shine &amp; start reaping fresh installs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Releasing Oracle 11g on Linux before windows is a very smart move for two reasons:<br />
  If you want to showcase the reliability, scalability and affordability of the DBMS, Linux is the platform to do it on.<br />
Oracle&#8217;s architecture benefits greatly in an environment that can handle multiple processes, each with their own memory area.<br />
In addition, Linux is notoriously stable (allowing for huge uptime numbers by leveraging 11g&#8217;s new hot-patching) , and on a 64 bit machine, the resource cielings are ridiculously high.  Simply put, Oracle can reap more impressive numbers on Linux.<br />
  The other reason relates to where the growth will come from.  Budget concious CIOs are beginning to realize the money pit that is OS licensing.  If your capital replacement cycle isn&#8217;t tied into a migration to Linux, you&#8217;ll have similar migration issues, AND have substantial licensing fees.  Legacy systems may stick with SQL Server or Oracle on windows, but Oracle is positioning itself to catch all of the new Business Area expantions, replacement cycle implementations &amp; migrations.<br />
  In summary, debuting 11g on Linux was the right answer.  11g will shine &amp; start reaping fresh installs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Markus Perdrizat</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/eye-on-oracle/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/#comment-1072</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus Perdrizat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eyeonoracle.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/20/oracle-on-linux-vs-sql-server-on-windows/#comment-1072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would assume the reason that they release on Linux first is that they develop on Linux. Everything else only gets recompiled / ported to the respective platform once they know that the Linux version works well.
And of course a lot of the other reasons apply to the question why they chose Linux as the primary development platform...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would assume the reason that they release on Linux first is that they develop on Linux. Everything else only gets recompiled / ported to the respective platform once they know that the Linux version works well.<br />
And of course a lot of the other reasons apply to the question why they chose Linux as the primary development platform&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
