On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 09:46, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Please don't make this assumption. PostgreSQL is *very* much on their radar,
> > and probably represents the biggest long-term threat to their core database
> > business at the moment. We got a hint of that during the .org bidding, but
> > for now it is in Oracle's interest not to call attention to PostgreSQL.
> > The last thing they want is publicity for the project. We may be a harder
> > target to hurt than MySQL, but we are a target, make no mistake about it.
> > I'm sure PostgreSQL is on the radar of Sybase, Microsoft, and IBM as well.
>
> And they probably read every word we write ;)
I'd bet they read plenty, but don't necessarily understand a lot,
judging by their pitiful fud campaign when Afilias proposed using
postgresql as a database behind .org. They tried to say PostgreSQL
didn't support transactions. So, while we may be on their screens, and
I'm sure some marketeer there tries to keep up with some of the traffic
here, the actual comprehension seems pretty low judging by their past
statements.
Actually, I kinda hope it stays that way.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
