From: | Richard Schilling <rschilling(at)nationalinformatics(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Which database part 2 |
Date: | 2003-06-16 20:10:10 |
Message-ID: | 20030616201010.GI2100@foghorn.rsmba.biz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Didn't know they made the switch - but, my intuition tells me it has to
do with the fact that Sourceforge has for some time sold a proprietary
version of the software, and "partnering" with IBM would help make sure
the revenue stream for that version of the product remains in tact.
No worries - when PostgreSQL eventually outperforms DB2 there won't
have been any reason for switching.
--Richard Schilling
On 2003.06.16 11:38 scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Kaarel,
> >
> > > Why did SourceForge.net move from PostgreSQL to DB2?
> >
> > Perhaps because VA Software made a multi-million dollar deal with
> IBM?
> > <grin>
> >
> > (Actually, I know as a VA stockholder that that was one of the
> > conditions of the IBM deal)
>
> As a followup to this, I, and many of my friends, noticed that
> sourceforge's search capability was much more limited and much slower
> after converting.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Louis Leroy | 2003-06-17 06:54:10 | Re: PostgreSQL presentation at LSM |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-06-16 19:57:08 | Re: Which database part 2 |