On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:19:53PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote: > Ok. but it is still a lazy approach and indicates that Oracle has not > singled us out for special treatment. Again, this was not the case with > MySQL as of 2000 at the latest. I may be more paranoid, but that may be because our use of PostgreSQL was real unpopular in the original Oracle shop where the registry software was developed (the technical side of Afilias was originally called Liberty RMS, and was a subsidiary of TUCOWS. I was hired originally by them. Afilias bought Liberty not long after the .info registry went live, however, and we've always been a better fit here than we were at TUCOWS). I do know, however, that Oracle doesn't publicly talk about PostgreSQL, but they have plenty to say in private about it to their existing customers. And it's not nearly as ill-informed as the public comments suggest. > I think it is important to eventually capture the image of PostgreSQL as > *the* FOSS RDBMS (which MySQL currently still holds among too many > developers). But that is the extent of my concern with them. Sure. But if you build a reputation as an industrial-strength system that happens to be free, you can go after the FOSS area without much additional effort; whereas if you concentrate first on being free, you then have the later problem of moving from "free" to "enterprise grade". A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Information security isn't a technological problem. It's an economics problem. --Bruce Schneier ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
