On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:48:47AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 08:47, Brad Nicholson wrote: > > 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. > > I had a boss once who panned PostgreSQL because he wanted a company to > be able to blame if things went wrong. I asked him if it wasn't more > important to worry about preventing things from going wrong in the first > place. I got a rather blank stare for a while. No answer. And now-a-days, there's at least 2 US companies you can pay for the right to blame when something goes wrong. -- Jim Nasby jim@xxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
