Comments on: The Next Oracle Database Version — 11g?

By: OraTransplant » Log Buffer #51: a Carnival of the Vanities for DBAs

OraTransplant » Log Buffer #51: a Carnival of the Vanities for DBAs — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:01:48 +0000

[...] an official Oracle presentation on new features. Alex Gorbachev of the Pythian Group is wondering what the name will be; 11g, 11f, 11w, or what… Gary Myers has the news that Application Express (APEX) will be [...]

By: Dominic Brooks

Dominic Brooks — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:22:49 +0000

‘G’rid was the industry buzzword when 10g came out.
From what I read, virtualization is the latest bandwagon. So my money’s on 11v.

By: rjamya

rjamya — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:00:26 +0000

We had encountered few issues during beta where were told (advised?) that ” if you want this feature, you cannot use RAC “. Well there was more than one such issue. Hopefully it is all fixed now.

I sure hope so.
rjamya

By: Noons

Noons — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:35:33 +0000

Hep! I lay claim to the first mention of “11f”.
Over a year ago, in the oracle-l list!

But I’d settle for 11s: as in “solid”…

failing that, “working” is indeed a good option!

By: Alex Gorbachev

Alex Gorbachev — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:41:39 +0000

Nice suggestion Andy – I added Oracle 2.0 in the options. Thanks!

By: Andy C

Andy C — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:40:27 +0000

’9i’ to ’10g’ was a retrograde step IMHO. ’10g’ to ’11f’ would merely be compounding the error.

I strongly favour ‘Oracle 2.0 (beta)’ which would immediately get massive kudos and create a wealth of positive marketing and PR opportunities.

This new, exciting Oracle brand would also gain much needed respect from those pesky ‘A’ listers in the blogging community.

By: Doug Burns

Doug Burns — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:06:44 +0000

I’m useless at these games, so I’ll vote for your suggestion.

“Working” would be a wonderful result …