Re: FW: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet

It would be nice to see some kind of explanation or rebuttal into
why Sourceforge is going to DB2. Well in my mind, when thinking
of the big databases, DB2 seems to be the biggest of them all, but I thought Postgres was more than capable of handling a site like Sourceforge.

My guess is that they are looking for some kind of distributed solution.
And IBM seems to be the number 1 backer of open source projects so
it seems like a good match, they might be donating their services to
the project.

http://nscpcw.physics.upenn.edu/db2_docs/db2e0/db2e003.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>
Date: 20 Aug 2002 10:04:21 +0200
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] FW: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL and MySQL in ZDNet

> On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 00:35, arguile(at)lucentstudios(dot)com wrote:
> > Robert J. Sanford, Jr. wrote on August 19, 2002
> > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,474127,00.asp
> >
> > I'm forwarding this from general to advocacy just so people are aware of it.
>
> For those that didn't read it:
> - not much info in there
> - it *is* mentioned, at least, that pgsql has transactions, while it is
> announced as novelty for mysql (sort of)
> - it is *not* mentioned that many of the features announced for mysql
> 4.1 are already in pg now.
> - it is mentioned that sourceforge switched away from pg 'because it
> didn't scale'.
> - it is mentioned that pg will add sql99 schema support
> - it is mentioned that pgsql inc is one of several companies offering
> commercial support on pg
>
> word count is mysql > pg, but the article does not try to compare the
> two.
>
> --> better than some other articles, I think.
>
> cheers
> -- vbi
>
> --
> secure email with gpg http://fortytwo.ch/gpg
>
<< signature.asc >>

--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net

Powered by Outblaze