From: Anastasios Hatzis <ah@hatzis.de>
Organization: HATZIS Edelstahlbearbeitung GmbH
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: On managerial choosing (was: Postgres VS Oracle)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:57:58 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <c50dbb0b0706180855v4b781f13m6e54c50aa3ab1dee@mail.gmail.com>
	<603b0odl5i.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<20070620144810.GO31426@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070620144810.GO31426@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2807329.QKjHaF9xNU";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200706201958.03510.ah@hatzis.de>

--nextPart2807329.QKjHaF9xNU
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:22:17AM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> > In cases where you *do not* spend the BPOM, there is not any
> > particular evidence available to indicate that Oracle is, in any
> > interesting way, more reliable than PostgreSQL.
>
> I hate to say this, but as true as the above is, it has very close to
> zero relevance to the way most senior managers make decisions.

[...]

I also hate to say this, but I fully agree with whatever you wrote in this=
=20
mail.

[...]

> much money you have to spend, and how risky it would be to tie that
> up in Oracle licenses.  In some cases, that turns out to be too risky,
> and Postgres becomes a viable choice.  It's only exceptionally
> visionary senior managers who operate in other ways.

Yes, maybe 10 out of 100. Likely less.

[...]
> addicted to the excellent features of PostgreSQL, though.  The second
> is that marketing to management by using arguments, listing lots of
> technical detail and features, and the like, will never work.
> They'll ignore such cluttered and crowded brochures, because they
> don't deal in technical detail.  We have to make PostgreSQL a
> low-risk choice for them.

I wonder if this is something which really is a job of the core team or=20
community (I think of the 'traditional' PG users who are more technically=20
focussed and maybe not enthusiastic about too much CIO/CTO flavored=20
communication). Actually this kind of communication looks to me like to be=
=20
perfectly done by commercial PG vendors?

Anastasios

--nextPart2807329.QKjHaF9xNU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUARnlqp5xwYjAZiPWNAQJ19gP9ETe8AA58mNyIO5szxqNLD87ORPbJ7RoB
g+sYtZcR3dtciIIt+mG1WOqyGgN4J9i0ExHFEQt0t64cZNsAKUnTw1FSL/LzP8Tk
ofa0SP2V3iNsueIGvIZ7BLf8V9okhAZ4a6ekgdQ0147nWH4j4TdNikSWfQWHwyLb
jjKyQCH6qoA=
=aGlo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2807329.QKjHaF9xNU--