On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:38 -0500, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:10:56AM -0500, Tony Caduto wrote:
For a high level corp manager all they ever hear about is MS SQL Server,
Oracle and DB2, and the more it costs the more they think it is what
they need :-)
I think that description is false. At a certain point in the
management hierarchy, the only way anyone has the ability to evaluate
something is on the basis of reputation.
I think that description is false. At a certain point in the management
hierarchy, the only way anyone has the ability to evaluate something is on
the basis of....
- if there is someone they can sue.
Good luck attempting to sue Microsoft, Oracle or IBM for deficiencies in
their database products.
Suing someone is not the real reason. It's the excuse given to one's
boss. The real reason is the "Nobody ever got fired for using IBM"
mentality. If you use something that your superiors recognize as the
industry leader and it doesn't work out, who would blame you?
It's CYA. And it's wimpy.
Yep. That's exactly it!
Here's a feel good story for you...
A couple of companies ago where we were small and I got to make the
decisions, we decided to build our app on FreeBSD/PHP/PostgreSQL. And all
was well, since we were small and people trusted me. Then we got bought
out by a big company. The first thing they wanted us to do was rewrite
for Linux/Java/Oracle. Then one of the sales guys wanted us to add
SQLServer support cause it would look good on the feature sheet. Note that
99% of the time this was a hosted solution. I left about a year ago and
just recently learned that for one of their new products (deployable not
hosted) they were going with PostgreSQL :-)
-philip
