-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/30/07 14:50, Rich Shepard wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Mark Walker wrote: > [snip] > At last year's at O'Reilly's OSCON here in Portland I had this discussion > with the booth babes sales droids from Sugar-CRM. They said that they heard > numerous requests for postgres support but the decision-makers in the > company were not interested in accommodating that segment of the market. So > this is not an isolated instance. > > At the risk of going off the topic (but I won't respond on the list to > any > such posts), this attitude does not surprise me. It continues to disappoint > me, but I've seen too many poorly managed companies to be surprised any > longer. Across many industries I wonder why some companies manage to have > survived as long as they have. The company might not have the resources to maintain 2 backends, or modify the whole system so that it is backend neutral. Maybe they use lots of MySQL-specific features that would make re-engineering it an arduous/imposible/expensive task, and thus not feasible. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFv7KrS9HxQb37XmcRAkamAJ0Q+mJndlO0UMQ4KilwBtoN6c6CaACfXahj uSE+flB2ql4C0rba5qTGJCE= =+EAM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
