| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jdrake(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(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: | 2006-10-13 17:31:14 |
| Message-ID: | 452FCD62.40900@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 01:25:16PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>>> The reality is, very few companies are willing to bet their a..erm,
>>> donkey ;) on PostgreSQL... yet.
>> I think this was true two years ago, but just about anybody here can
>> name a whole bunch of outfits (and probably is not allowed to name
>> others) that bet the farm on PostgreSQL. :)
>
> My point was that how many fortune 500 companies have
> mission-critical services that depend on PostgreSQL, especially if
> they're public-facing? Sure, some have... many more have not. The few
> that have are on the bleeding edge (which isn't so bloody afterall).
I find that the fortune 500 companies that are technical in nature are
already running PostgreSQL. Those that are of a different nature likely
aren't.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
SPI Liason, PostgreSQL Fundraising Group
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Find out about PostgreSQL Fundraising: http://fundraising.postgresql.org/
Read the PostgreSQL docs: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-13 17:33:55 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-13 17:27:31 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server, Oracle |