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

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/