| From: | "Ned Lilly" <ned(at)nedscape(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Comparing databases |
| Date: | 2003-11-12 12:01:00 |
| Message-ID: | 00c801c3a914$a7aabb10$ceea1943@Ned |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> > I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better
> > wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come
> > and gone but postgresql continues on"
>
> How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as
> sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued
> (relatively) unaffected'
>
> Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-)
All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are many firms providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jussi Mikkola | 2003-11-12 13:23:04 | Re: Comparing databases |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-11-12 08:52:08 | Re: Comparing databases |