Message-ID: <4676C5F6.1090604@burntmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:50:46 -0400
From: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
References: <c50dbb0b0706180855v4b781f13m6e54c50aa3ab1dee@mail.gmail.com>	
	<36e682920706180910y519bc6a5h11e0ba56f45009ec@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4676B7C7.6020801@kostyrka.org>
	<36e682920706181002i495f3fc3s2d55472e36a91b63@mail.gmail.com>
	<4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com>
In-Reply-To: <4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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.

Well, I'm sure that is part of it, perhaps the major part.  But part of 
also is likely to be avoiding every shlub with a computer doing some 
off-the-wall comparison showing X to be 1000 times "better" than Oracle, 
SQL Server or DB2; then the corresponding vendor has to spend endless 
time and money refuting all these half-baked comparisons.

-- 
Guy Rouillier