Re: Comparing databases

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:

> After a long battle with technology, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian), an earthling, wrote:
> > scott.marlowe wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote:
> >> > > All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates
> >> > > more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from
> >> > > this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I
> >> > > repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are many firms
> >> > > providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z
> >> > > companies.
> >> >
> >> > I second this.
> >>
> >> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is
> >> supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one
> >> company can drive the project in any one direction against the best
> >> interests of the community"?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is
> > supported by several different companies, preventing vendor
> > lock-in. ..........................
>
> I rather like a wording like...
>
> "Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a
> number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with
> products controlled exclusively by a single vendor."

I like this wording ... "preventing vendor lock-in" doesn't have a nice
ring to it ...