This content has been marked as final. Show 154 replies
Guys, I'm told that Instant Client support for Mac OS X/Intel is planned for 11g. You will not see it in the initial wave of releases though; it will take a bit longer. But help is on the way.
Please add my voice to the chorus asking for Intel Mac OS X support. I am completely baffled why this hasn't been done already.
We use Java and Oracle here (and although it's a modest Oracle installation, it's growing), but we are starting to use a lot of Ruby, and it would be very helpful to be able to access Oracle from Ruby on our Intel Macs (our engineering staff is 100% Intel Mac).
I've heard that Oracle is hiring Rails developers to get into some Web 2.0-type applications. Since a lot of Rails developers use Macs, does that mean an Intel-native OCI binary is coming soon?
Or maybe they'll use postgres or God forbid, MySQL, within the walls of the Oracle offices until 11gR3 or so finally comes around with Intel Mac support?
It would seem trivial to just recompile whatever they have for Intel Macs, but we have to wait until future releases of 11g? Come on....
Seriously, these are PPC only?:
Makes this tutorial useless for many an OSX users then doesn't it?:
Any estimates on when this will come out? Taking this long for what is a simple task is absurd.
Message was edited by:
It is no small thing to support a new platform; support and certification processes must be in place. And this requires diligent cooperation from Apple BTW :).
Are you kidding? It's been almost TWO years. Even Adobe now fully supports the Intel platform. The ONLY other software house who hasn't jumped on the Intel bandwagon is Microsoft - a company for which Apple is in direct competition in many facets.
Your support is egregious and is likely leading to substantial erosion of support for your database platform. We're already looking at other options in our office. Plus, we'll save a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in Oracle fees.
And blaming Apple for your misgivings? Pathetic.
To support the client libraries on Intel OSX? That is a load of bull and an excuse, Oracle could easily do this if it chose, everyone else has.
Nobody is "blaming" anyone or making "excuses". The point is that in a large development organization, these decisions are not made at the drop of a hat (they need to be justified), and then when made, several discrete steps need to be taken. I.e., nobody is going to do this on their lunch hour and then upload it to OTN after dessert.
I can assure you that I have forwarded this thread to several relevant people and hope as much as you do that this will happen in the near future. But I don't make those decisions.
BTW, this process will surely be accelerated if you make these requirements known to your Oracle rep/Oracle Support as well.
Does Oracle seriously take 18 month lunch breaks? Are you so stagnant / slow / lethargic that it takes two years to even announce the support of a popular platform?
I appreciate your communications - it's the only ones I've seen from anyone at Oracle. But defending this lack of performance by Oracle is falling on frustrated ears from big customers who've been requesting this for a long time.
You're also speaking to a lot of "large development organizations" on these boards. We know how these decisions are made. We make them ourselves. Defending them as such is condescending and a bit contrite.
I've been making these requirements known to my Oracle rep(s) for over a year. Would you like me to send you their names?
I'm glad to hear that you have!
People sometimes forgot on these boards that "we" (meaning, OTN) are on your side. We consider it our job to foster communication between customers and the Oracle development org, and we take every opportunity to do so (as we have in this case).
I hope as much as you do that this happens ASAP; it would be great for the developer community.
It would be great for Oracle. It would be great for all the customers of Oracle.
I haven't forgotten who you work for. Your job (and side) is whatever Oracle tells you it is. That doesn't put you in an enviable position, but doesn't mean much to people who have spent millions of dollars on a database over the years. Oracle hasn't provided any formal response to what some of it's customers have asked for - been asking for - for quite some time. I understand it's a business decision. Communication is also a business decision. So is choosing a different product. Unfortunately, many of us have quite a bit invested in this product. We were told that the Mac was a supported platform. The Mac platform changed. People had patience. Then patience ran out.
Oracle has been nearly mum on this whole thing except for a few messages on these boards which have been vague and non-committal at best (and what I consider a fairly non-official form of communication). Oracle should have been more forthcoming with information. The amount of frustration created by the lack of information on this topic has been much more damning than the lack of product itself.
I appreciate you have a job to do. I understand that you have no specific power in this matter. My frustration is not aimed at your personally, but at Oracle. Unfortunately, you are a representative for Oracle on these forums. I don't envy your job.
I look forward to further information, particularly formal announcements, in the future regarding this issue.
100% peace to you, absolutely. I know your position is not the best in this issue but you are the "face" of Oracle here.
And Oracle is following, IMHO, a very bad roadmap to provide us with a reliable solution.
- It isn't serious at all to wait more than 18 months to provide a simple client library.
- It isn't serious to tell that the solution is to wait until 11g arrive. It isn't related at all with the problem in this thread.
- It isn't serious at all to talk about so long development cycles for one trivial product like the requested here (the Instant Client compiled under Intel Macs).
Everyday I compile applications and libraries for my Intel Mac and all them are built without problems at all. Sorry but, from a technical perspective, I cannot believe it's anything different than to perform one simple "make" and, bump, the library will compile and will be ready to distribution. Knowing that, where is the problem, what's the strategic point in Oracle's roadmap.
I'm pretty sure that there is some reason but I, one poor developer, cannot understand it.
Are you telling us that we, Intel Mac developers, must start thinking about to use another RDBMS for our developments? Are you telling us that we must ask Apple about to help you? Are you telling that to recompile that simple library is a matter of, say, more that 1-hour effort? Plus 17 months of testing?
Nah, please, I cannot believe that. So, please, please, build and distribute such small library. I don't need Oracle 11g working under Intel Macs (I won't to burn my MBP), nor clusters, nor oas, nor anything else.
Just one tiny, small and simple client library to continue my developments. Please, send this request as high as possible.
Cheers, jkestely, an peace, ciao :-)
I appreciate your responses, jkestley.
To echo stronk7's post, the vast majority of us developers would be satisfied with an Intel Mac-native client libraries so that we can connect to Oracle databases through Ruby/Rails/Python/etc.
Having the entire 10g/11g database server suite be Intel Mac-native is certainly nice, but what we need urgently are those client libraries. I imagine those would be much easier to come up with.
Please, please escalate this - Thanks.
I would also like echo digits comments. I need the client libraries - the OCI / OCCI libs (which pretty much everything lives on top of). The rest is nice but not as pressing. Other's needs may vary.
Our organization is suffering from the issue as well (particulary, right now I'm forced to do CLI debuging on linux because I can't compile/debug on my Mac), but for those who is "considering other RDBMS"... We all know that noone would switch from Oracle bacause of that and Oracle knows that. My take is that some senior exec got pissed off at Apple beacuse of the Intel transition and made a decision to put that thing on hold. Of course that's just another conspiracy theory...