Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Andreas Kostyrka" <andreas(at)kostyrka(dot)org>, "David Tokmatchi" <david(dot)tokmatchi(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
Date: 2007-06-18 17:38:44
Message-ID: 36e682920706181038r21f88631w46960c28b42aeef8@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-advocacypgsql-generalpgsql-novicepgsql-performance
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?

As many times as necessary.  Funny how the anti-proprietary-database
arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional
RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX,
read that before posting again."

> 1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary
> which is perfectly legitimate.

As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure.

> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
> would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
> thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.

They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do;
anything statement in that area is pure assumption.

I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the
continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to
perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning
personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel.

All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with
MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct),
have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against
ancient versions.  I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and
Microsoft are concerned.

-- 
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Andreas KostyrkaDate: 2007-06-18 17:46:33
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-06-18 17:32:13
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Markus SchiltknechtDate: 2007-06-18 17:40:57
Subject: Re: Replication
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-06-18 17:32:13
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Andreas KostyrkaDate: 2007-06-18 17:46:33
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-06-18 17:32:13
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Andreas KostyrkaDate: 2007-06-18 17:46:33
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-06-18 17:32:13
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Vincenzo RomanoDate: 2007-06-18 17:42:55
Subject: Re: Using the query INTERSECTion
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-06-18 17:32:13
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group