On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional RTFM-like response of, "hey, this was already discussed in thread XXX, read that before posting again."
1. It has *nothing* to do with anti-commercial. It is anti-proprietary which is perfectly legitimate.
As long as closed-mindedness is legitimate, sure.
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
They may well have a lot to fear, but that doesn't mean they do; anything statement in that area is pure assumption. I'm in no way saying we can't compete, I'm just saying that the continued closed-mindedness and inside-the-box thinking only serves to perpetuate malcontent toward the proprietary vendors by turning personal experiences into sacred-mailing-list gospel. All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct), have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against ancient versions. I'm only doing the same where Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft are concerned. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
