| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Kaare Rasmussen <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
| Date: | 2006-10-13 17:27:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20061013172731.GD28647@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:25:16PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
> > donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet.
>
> I think this was true two years ago, but just about anybody here can
> name a whole bunch of outfits (and probably is not allowed to name
> others) that bet the farm on PostgreSQL. :)
My point was that how many fortune 500 companies have
mission-critical services that depend on PostgreSQL, especially if
they're public-facing? Sure, some have... many more have not. The few
that have are on the bleeding edge (which isn't so bloody afterall).
In any case, this is rapidly changing. The next few years will certainly
be very interesting. :)
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-10-13 17:31:14 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
| Previous Message | Duncan Garland | 2006-10-13 09:35:31 | Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |