Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Date: 2006-05-19 01:40:40
Message-ID: 446D2218.7010003@calorieking.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

> If you want to get users to swtich to your software from your competitors, you
> have to eliminate barriers, and a big one for any database is getting locked
> into a specific one. People aren't going to take the time to try switching
> to postgresql if they can't easily make it back to thier former database.
> It's one of the reasons why PostgreSQL's standards compliance is so
> important; if you want to swtich to a new database, your best bet is to give
> PostgreSQL a shot, because even if you don't like it, we're not going to try
> and trap you into our software with bunches of non-standard knobs. Low
> barrier to exit == low barrier to entry.

Another reason why a tool to export from pgsql to mysql is just as
important as the vice versa...

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-05-19 01:41:31 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2006-05-19 01:40:01 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-05-19 01:41:31 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2006-05-19 01:40:01 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?