Oct 132007
 

If you try to install Oracle on Solaris 10 (x86-x64 version) and you run into the following error when you start the installer:

ld.so.1: java: fatal relocation error...

then you probably have your locale defined as “en_US.UTF-8”, the default. This is a bug in Java on Solaris. Workaround is to set it (temporary) to something else (e.g. en_US.ISO8859-15). This will not affect how you install the software, but only how the installer itself runs.

I ran into this on Solaris 10 Developer Edition 09/07 on AMD64, with Oracle 10g 64-bits for Solaris.

Oct 062007
 

Well, not all of it, but I have your attention now, do I? I intalled Oracle database 10g 64-bits edition on my Ubuntu AMD64 (Feisty). Works like a charm. You need to install a ton of packages, but after that, it works without a glitch.
To get Oracles HTTP server to work (not to be mistaken by the real application server, which is a completely different beast) one needs to install the companion CD. There is a companion CD in a 64 bits version for Linux. Yeah. Don’t you think that it contains a recompiled version of Apache, since it does not.The Apache server on the companion CD is the normal 32-bits version.
Oracle likes spending its money buying all sorts of companies, instead of supporting their customers and developers. Mind you, I’m trying to install the thing on Ubuntu, which is not supported by Oracle at all. But judging by the number of forum messages and blog posts about Oracle on 64-bits OS-es, I can only conclude Oracle doesn’t care about 64-bits at all.

Their 11g database is available for Linux now. The specs demand a very recent PC or server, but it’s only available as … a 32-bits version.

Why is that? Hardware manufacturers are pushing 64-bits systems like crazy, but the software (and OS-es) is way behind. Why? AMD64 has been around quite some time. Intel has a lot of 64-bits processors. What are they all waiting for?

Sep 162007
 

Sofar, I’m disappointed by the 64-bits experience. For starters, Solaris 10 would not even boot the DVD. Not the normal Solaris 10 DVD, nor the Solaris Express (latest build). The Express version got a little farther in the boot process, but gave up with some error too.

Ubuntu amd64 works. But that’s about it. I installed it on a different partition (duh!) but had to manually add it to the grub config of my 32-bit installation. If the install is recognizing my 32-bit installation and offers me to import my settings (which it did brilliantly) why not add the boot image to grub?
Firefox and Thunderbird2 are NOT in the Feisty AMD64 repositories. Getting them compiled from the sources is not for the faint of heart. It’s not a matter of “./configure;make“. You need to install many development libraries, create config-files (for which there are no examples in the tarball). Eventually I got the Gutsy (Ubuntu 7.10) sources working (not the standard tarball). For Firefox I installed Swiftweasel (the Epiphany browser does not even show its address and buttonbar), an optimized unbranded version of Firefox.

The soundcard on my motherboard (7.1 C-Media) is not supported (well). At best I get sound without the ability to control the volume. So I disabled the onboard soundcard and plugged my old Sound Blaster Live!1024 back in. It goes without saying that this card is properly supported.

More and more consumer PC’s and laptops have AMD Athlon64 X2 or Intel Core 2 Duo processor, both of which are 64-bits. If the 64-bits support will remain on this (Ubuntu) level, I can see a lot of happy Linux users switching BACK to a Microsoft OS. Don’t worry, I will not, but Vista has proper 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

So tell me, If Ubuntu amd64 is not the way, which Linux distro is?

BTW Very NOT disappointing is the performance of Ubuntu64. Things run just a little smoother than the 32-bits version. But it can be that 32-bit applications runs slower on a 64-bits processor. And of course the big version recognizes all of the 4GB of memory instead of only 3.5.

 Posted by at 02:36  Tagged with: