From: | Ken McGlothlen <mcglk(at)serv(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux] |
Date: | 1998-07-21 21:03:00 |
Message-ID: | 199807212103.OAA26071@ralf.serv.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
| Consider what we are doing. Commercial database vendors have teams of
| full-time programmers, adding features to their databases, while we have a
| volunteer group of part-time developers.
Oh! I'd never *dream* of maligning the coders working on PostgreSQL. For a
volunteer grass-roots effort, PostgreSQL is a paragon of virtue---one of the
reasons I like it. And writing complex database packages of this sort isn't
exactly chimp-stuff, either---I think any of us would vouch for that.
Ultimately, the crux of the matter is this: who are we *targeting* as our
competition? If we're looking at the mSQL and mySQL camp, clearly PostgreSQL
stomps them both, from both the SQL support side and the data-security side.
(And yes, I'd agree that the code is *ever* so much neater than MySQL.)
But if we're trying to position ourselves as a viable alternative to the big
commercial ones, such as Oracle and Informix and Sybase and MS SQL Server, we
need to work on a lot of issues. Open source is perceived in the business
community as a big risk, and not a benefit. Even today, someone said to me,
"Oh, that's all we need, some Linux guru spending three or four hours on
compiling a new kernel rather than attending to his actual duties." (Yes, I'll
be the first to admit that it was a stupid statement, but as a consultant, I
can't just say, "What a stupid statement." It takes time to win over people
like this; you have to throw a product at them that makes them go, "Geez, that
was cool, and it saved us a lot of time and money.")
| Fortunately, we have many features they don't have, which we inherited from
| Berkeley.
Yes. But at the moment, they have a bunch of *fundamental* features that we
don't have. That's what worries me as far as general acceptance of PostgreSQL
by the business community.
| I have made it a personal project of mine to make it clear, so other people
| can understand it and hence contribute.
A lot more could be done. More comments. Breaking out individual datatypes
into their own modules (ready-made templates for new types that require
implementation in C!). But to your (and others') credit, it's gotten quite a
bit cleaner just in the last year.
| We clearly are the most advanced "open source" database around. We now
| have "closed source" competition. How do we meet that challenge?
If we can clear up some of the glaring lackings in PostgreSQL by year-end, I
think it'll've been met pretty well.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Logue | 1998-07-22 00:49:26 | Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products |
Previous Message | Steve Doliov | 1998-07-21 20:36:20 | Postgres vs commercial products |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-07-21 21:09:31 | Re: [HACKERS] cidr |
Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 1998-07-21 21:02:49 | Re: [HACKERS] cidr |