I have been involved in major custom software projects since 1984 wherein significant industrial applications were developed on platforms using various versions of UNIX running on PC class machines and installed in many high-tech facilities around the world. In one project 14 years ago, a single Intel 386 running Unix ran 11 real-time manufacturing devices requiring about 1,500 initiating transactions per hour, supported 18 touch screen intelligent terminals, supported 6 dumb terminals, internationally connected dial-up telephone support, printers, and connected to a major manufacturing control system; such has always been the power of UNIX or Linux. Most of the software from those projects is easily ported to Linux. UNIX and its variants were chosen because Linux was not professionally supportable in all parts of the world. It would not have required much push into Linux if professional grade application software were available.

In addition to IBM's commitment, I know of one other group that is considering partnering with the major application developers in an effort to avoid the vulnerabilities associated with MS products and especially their OSs.

In the industrial systems I mentioned above that used UNIX, the PC class computers (everything from Intel 286 on up) ran for months without re-booting. In those same facilities, some test and process equipment software ran in MS Windows environments and it was a basic practice in those 24/7 environments to re-boot those compters at least once a week as a requirement of preventative maintenance, regardless of the current state of the computer; it was an assurance that sooner or later, the computer would be guaranteed to fail at the most vulnerable time if the scheduled re-boot was not done.

As long as we are griping about the way Oracle configures their product, how about looking at Oracle Enterprise Manager? The first time you log in to OEM you are presented with a license page that summarizes what features you may not use without an extra license. But after you click Accept all features, licensed and unlicensed, are fully available in the interface. To avoid unlicensed use of the software you need a cheat-sheet to tell you which links are clickable on which pages.

This is really a pretty small gripe since Oracle gives you access to what you paid for and even more, but if someone is trying to use only licensed software Oracle makes it more difficult than it needs to be.

anon

I've had similar experiences, and concluded that Oracle's support groups have incentives to close TARs as quickly as possible.

There have been situations where I've created a TAR with very clear information about what I have and have not tried. It isn't unusual for the analyst to paste a "boilerplate" response and close the TAR, without recognizing that the solution provided has already been attempted and wasn't successful.

I've also seen cases where a lingering TAR was closed and opened under a different number in order to make it appear that the original case was closed, and didn't take as long to resolve as it really did.

Like other posters here, I've also been referred to articles that either didn't exist or that are internal and cannot be accessed by those outside of Oracle. And it isn't uncommon to find gross discrepancies and inaccuracies in some of the articles as well.

I've been working with Oracle for about 14 years and seen the quality of their support take a nose dive. If I have to call in, I'm careful to only log TARs at specific times in order to maximize the chances that I'll be routed to the traditionally better call centers. I avoid calling overnight unless absolutely critical.

The language barrier is only part of the problem. There is an attitude from the offshore centers, too. Not only is it obvious that most of the analysts (or should I say operators) lack the skill set, they lack the customer service ability as well. Nobody's support has ever frustrated me as deeply as Oracle's offshore workers consistently achieve. It seems that decisions for handling a TAR is based on the subject line, as I can't begin to count the number of times that I've been asked to provide information I've already provided, or told that I need to perform some configuration that is contrary to what I'm trying to accomplish. I'll repeatedly refer the analyst to the information already provided, or provide it again, only to have it ignored and another useless request from support made.

The most hilarious part of all of this (if you can find humor in the situation) is filling out the "quality survey" that often follows a TAR closure. If I rate the service poorly, I'll get an email or phone call from a manager asking if I might have rated inaccurately (misunderstanding a 1 is best for 5 is best, for example) or not rated the correct TAR. After providing details, I have yet to have received a follow-up in the form of an apology or promise to try harder. It leaves me feeling that the "bad" evaluations get tossed. That would make sense, considering the state of support. It certainly isn't getting better.

My final gripe is the "Collaborative Support" which is available for Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows only. Ever since it came out (how many years ago I forget) I've been told that it'll support other browsers and OSs, but those of us running outside the Microsoft domain are still left without anything. I've actually had TARs where the analyst told me that without getting Collaborative Support to run he couldn't solve my problem.