Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E296F9FB1D4 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:55:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35730-01 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:55:49 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.225]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC2E9FA618 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:55:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 68so1091968wri for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=cfK5KSsjBfwNba3G/wGgfg5tkQTEzVk80f2OCVO9+QHMzALkxK3O8MEfW+EI8BIL122zh+j4IEsKqujfYQT/Md2fgJ5Pn6wev2jmmrJNlQmmV+TTnhmBtKuOme/V3mbi+dlHDu4jai5TcP19E6HdSswtCePmDmIvt1PW9uZs1as= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=cWqzk0NNBtxFsFOeQdhyG35PsTkQz59mNvp1pdao1sxay7vDfxD2a711gHwcKa3nf1GlyEFiMUPBIMWRi1eAa9d3WEgF9ZrfKod7CfhkWjxd++ZRorj/mNrqRYCEKvezJgOTT8+JwtMhCQoEZ15Jd9y9kgm5iQ5s9jf2c8r+YXU= Received: by 10.90.74.1 with SMTP id w1mr4248094aga.1182192950342; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.83? ( [206.114.45.106]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 15sm24429250nzn.2007.06.18.11.55.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle From: Adam Tauno Williams Reply-To: adamtaunowilliams@gmail.com To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <36e682920706181038r21f88631w46960c28b42aeef8@mail.gmail.com> References: <36e682920706180910y519bc6a5h11e0ba56f45009ec@mail.gmail.com> <4676B7C7.6020801@kostyrka.org> <36e682920706181002i495f3fc3s2d55472e36a91b63@mail.gmail.com> <4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com> <36e682920706181038r21f88631w46960c28b42aeef8@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:54:10 -0400 Message-Id: <1182192850.4452.9.camel@aleph.whitemice.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/151 X-Sequence-Number: 25819 > > 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." Hey! I was about to! :) As an Informix/DB2 admin I can tell you that those forums/lists get pounded with the same kind of crap. My take: It is a bad policy, so hound the vendor, and leave the rest of us alone. Convincing or not convincing me isn't going to move the cause. And now the rule of not cross-posting has been broken... commence the downward spiral! > > 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. Yep, and the 90-95% number is straight out-of-the-air. And I believe that exactly 17 angels can dance on the head of a pin. -- Adam Tauno Williams, Network & Systems Administrator Consultant - http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com Developer - http://www.opengroupware.org