 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Database Servers DB2InformixIngresMS SQLOraclePervasive.SQLPostgreSQLProgressSybaseDesktop Databases FileMakerFoxProMS AccessParadoxGeneral General DB TopicsDatabase TheoryRelated Topics Java Development.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentMore Topics ... |
Database Forum / Oracle / Oracle Server / June 2005Failed installation of 10g on White Box Linux 3.0 x86
Hi, I'm trying to install Oracle 10g 10.1.0.3 (for Linux x86) on White Box Linux Release 3.0 Respin 1. The runInstaller failed with the following message : Checking operating system version: must be redhat-2.1,redhat-3,SuSE-9,SuSE-8 or UnitedLinux-1.0 : Failed <<<<< What could be wrong ? White Box = Red Hat 3, no ? Matthias  SignatureIf you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. - Thomas Szasz Puschitz, Puschitz good. Puschitz, Puschitz real good. http://www.puschitz.com http://www.puschitz.com/InstallingOracle10g.shtml > Puschitz, Puschitz good. > Puschitz, Puschitz real good. > > http://www.puschitz.com > http://www.puschitz.com/InstallingOracle10g.shtml OK, found it : http://www.puschitz.com/InstallingOracle10g.shtml#CheckingRedhatReleaseFile THANKS ! > What could be wrong ? White Box = Red Hat 3, no ? No. White Box = White Box. The functionality is identical, BUT the strings have been changed to protect the innocent [from infringing on Red Hat's copyright]. And it's the strings that are checked. Go directly to Werner's site (http://www.puschitz.com). Read a bit .... this ain't Windows, we don't encourage illiteracy <g> SignatureHans Forbrich Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com *** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries *** >>What could be wrong ? White Box = Red Hat 3, no ? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Go directly to Werner's site (http://www.puschitz.com). Read a bit .... > this ain't Windows, we don't encourage illiteracy <g> Not all... :) Oracle identifies it as Red Hat AS 3 (but that has something to do with the *very* sloppy way strings are compared... A three anywhere is sufficient; Fedora Core 3 seems to install, too) SignatureRegards, Frank van Bortel > Not all... :) Oracle identifies it as Red Hat AS 3 (but that has > something to do with the *very* sloppy way strings are compared... > A three anywhere is sufficient; Fedora Core 3 seems to install, too) Not quite. Last time I checked, what is required is a '3' in the string found in the first line of /etc/redhat-release ... Never the less, White Box Linux MUST change any reference to 'Red Hat' and to the Red Hat logo to something else to avoid copyright infringement. Ditto TaoLinux and the others. Even if nothing else has changed, that means Red Hat and White box are not identical. Functionally equivalent, yes, but not identical. SignatureHans Forbrich Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com *** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries *** |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.