Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Kaare Rasmussen <kaare(at)jasonic(dot)dk>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Date: 2006-10-12 05:55:33
Message-ID: 200610112255.33818.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

David,

> Then they should have mentioned it. PostgreSQL has real issues, and
> if they'd mentioned any one of these, it would have been reasonable.
> Instead, these guys chose to spread the FUD around and call PostgreSQL
> a toy.

That's not how I read the article. They recommended PostgreSQL for "edge"
applications, which is the conventional opinion on Open Source databases.
From my perspective, it's a positive article for us: "Try PostgreSQL, you
might like it."

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-10-12 19:50:25 Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle
Previous Message Robert Treat 2006-10-12 03:24:50 Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle