Re: Article in BuilderAU: Are open source

On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 04:33, Robert Bernier wrote:
> I get the sense that the author is a bit ambivalent towards opensource
>
>
>
> Jussi(dot)Mikkola(at)bonware(dot)com wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found this article. I was wondering, why they complain about the
> > documentation?
> >
> > http://www.builderau.com.au/architect/0,39024564,39129549,00.htm

Considering it has this piece of fuddish tripe in it:

“Users sometimes wonder who they can sue if something goes wrong. It’s
easy to find and sue Oracle, which is a commercial entity. But who do
they sue if MYSQL hurts their business?”

By this, (even as a quote from a source) it's pretty obvious this guy
has no clue about commercial software guarantees. Every EULA from every
major vendor has a clause about how you can't sue, and they're not
responsible for your lost or damaged up data.

The only guarantee you have whether or not pgsql is a good choice for
you is your own testing, period. If you didn't test it (or any other
database) and it screwed up your stuff, tough luck, commercial or open
source. It ain't nobody's choice but yours.

It's funny how Open Source provides better REAL support by way of things
like these mailing lists, while PHBs want a service contract because
they never trust the people working for them to be competent to solve
their own issues. So, the commercial stuff costs more, provides
generally poorer service, but the guy in charge of choosing the database
wants a little soothing pillow talk from a vendor so you go with product
X instead.