X-Original-To: pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3939B3A48A7
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 43986-09
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.250.190.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFEC3A48DA
	for <pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id 80F43319C3; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:45:04 +0100 (MET)
From: Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.benchmarks
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:02 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <Xns95E45AC19C4E3rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
References: <Xns95D5894565E82rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
	<8533.1105221483@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Xns95D8C662EB006rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
	<200501131704.45237.scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
X-Face: 
 +kXh]<cm0}l<Fvzd*?E]I7=Ug!X`>8'{:R`HzXla-aT~$s8a+C)k/B%RBr$_3sP`[kA}cl7#mD^9Z:oM`HpoC_kUEH['RZ*Ob%pz\ww^q&x)~zc`.xd]VQ4WN/3t2nS-<I>BvI%LF\B4:\9$EI:/|<)`?8I_;
	xzG@SOYFir/gk_eB4"Rl43-h%)8O0sR$b&Mp3XHR(0j=
X-Face-Author: Randolf Richardson (composed with Adobe Photoshop)
To: pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200501/15
X-Sequence-Number: 37

"scrawford@pinpointresearch.com (Steve Crawford)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

>>> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent
>>> benchmarks, and I think the same is true for SQL Server.  So you
>>> won't find anything unbiased.
>>
>>          I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission
>> of weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean
>> "Microsoft SQL Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server,"
>> despite the fact that PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL
>> Servers as well).
>>
>>          Do you happen to have links to their license agreements?  I'd
>> like to see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry
>> a song similar to "bloody murder" for many of my friends and
>> colleagues once verified.
>>
>>          Thanks, by the way.  This will pretty much be the needed "nail
>> in the coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two
>> organizations are that restrictive in their license agreements
> 
> Restrictive IN their license agreements? Hell, M$ and their buddies in 
> the BSA don't even want you to SEE the license till after you have 
> purchased the software! When Ed Foster, posing as a customer, tried 
> to get a pre-purchase copy of a license agreement he failed. 
> Microsoft's policy is that to see the license you must first purchase 
> the product: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/11/1939/04481
> 
> See how your client feels about that.

    	Excellent information!  Although it's not a benchmark, it's exactly 
what I was hoping for!  =D

    	My customer's going to try to get a copy before-hand.  He says that if 
they don't let him see it then they'll be "out of the running" for sure.