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

Re: Comparing databases

From: "Ned Lilly" <ned(at)nedscape(dot)com>
To: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>,"Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"PostgreSQL advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Comparing databases
Date: 2003-11-12 12:01:00
Message-ID: 00c801c3a914$a7aabb10$ceea1943@Ned (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
> > I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better 
> > wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come 
> > and gone but postgresql continues on"
> How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as 
> sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued 
> (relatively) unaffected'
> Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-)

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.

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jussi MikkolaDate: 2003-11-12 13:23:04
Subject: Re: Comparing databases
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-11-12 08:52:08
Subject: Re: Comparing databases

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group