Re: Experiences with extensibility

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Sim Zacks <sim(at)compulab(dot)co(dot)il>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Experiences with extensibility
Date: 2008-01-09 07:05:10
Message-ID: 47847226.2090409@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Sim Zacks wrote:
>
> > That isn't really an extensibility argument. At least not in my mind.
> > Further I don't know of anyone that can "easily" do it. You either
> > suffer the possibility of catastrophic data loss (dolphins) or you
> > suffer guaranteed bank account drainage (Oracle), or you suffer the
> > willingness of Monopolies (MSSQL).
> >
> > None of those equate to "easy".
>
> That's a load of FUD. When looking at feature-sets that are available or
> not
> available in an open source product, you can't throw out all the things
> that a
> commercial, closed source project has because it isn't open source and
> it costs
> money.

You obviously didn't read my post.

>
> The reason companies go with the closed source, expensive solutions is
> because
> they are better products.

Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on your needs.

>
> When evaluating a database for your company, it is better to look at
> what the
> closed source products offer that cause companies to shell out tons of
> money and
> decide if it is worth locking yourself into an expensive and/or
> exclusive agreement.

The only thing this post could possibly be is a Troll. Please go back
under the bridge.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. rake

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ow Mun Heng 2008-01-09 07:07:13 Re: Connect to SQL Server via ODBC from Postgresql
Previous Message Guido Neitzer 2008-01-09 06:51:07 Re: Experiences with extensibility