From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh(at)mecomb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | davidb(at)vectormath(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ... |
Date: | 1999-11-23 06:45:16 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.19991123144516.008ba100@pop.mecomb.po.my |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 01:18 AM 23-11-1999 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> If the priorities include stability and reliability, that's what you get.
>> If the priorities are features at any cost, you get junk.
>>
>> Though Open Source projects are less susceptible to featuritis, they're far
>> from immune. Trouble is many PHBs only compare stuff feature by brochure
>> feature.
>
>We only do 2-3 major releases a year for a reason. If it is not
>reliable, it is useless. This is not a computer game.
Yep. Glad to hear that.
My boss asked "MSSQL or Postgres" and a colleague and I said "Postgres". I
figured we'd have fewer problems with Postgres, so what if we couldn't
point fingers at someone else, better to get things done/fixed. Still good
to hear that reliability is high on your list.
Another colleague, was an Oracle guy and was nervous about Postgres - coz
if anything goes wrong he may have to help :). But Oracle was way too
pricey- we could have bought a house at the price they gave us...
In contrast: Netscape proudly proclaimed that when it was a choice between
features and stability, features always won. Explains a lot.
Cheerio,
Link.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jochen Topf | 1999-11-23 07:59:30 | Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for mission criticalapplications? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-11-23 06:18:59 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: Is PostgreSQL ready for ... |