Re: comp.database.postgresql.*

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:26:21 -0500, Andrew Rawnsley
<ronz(at)ravensfield(dot)com> wrote:
> Sorry, but I think that's about as silly a statement as I've read on
> this list. I have never seen
> any Oracle, DB2, or Sybase materials that claim 'We're big time - we
> have a legit comp..... newsgroup' (that would imply you could get support without
> paying for it).

I also think such "reasons" would be simply stupid.
Next thing would be maybe making sure PostgreSQL will be the
first thing returned whenever someone types in "database" into
Google. ;-)))

> Honestly, people here generally don't give a hoot what the other 'big'
> databases do (which is

I tend to look at it from complete different angle. Let's leave the
group stuff for a while and think about SQL. PostgreSQL seeks
to conform SQL standards as much as it is reasonable. I think
it is good approach, I feel it's much better than creating a new SQL
syntax for every obstacle encountered. And if there is some
"PostgreSQLism" which could be converted to SQL standard, then
I guess it's worth doing at least for the sake of following the standards.

And now, some time ago, PostgreSQL mailing lists were gatewayed
into Big8 namespace, to help people access them by other means.
Only it was done "unoffically", i.e. not following standard procedure
for such things. It could be thought of as "hooking up" to neighbour's
cable TV cables, only it does not involve stealing. ;) Well, I'm sure
it's easy to find many better comparable situations. ;)
Anyway, it's a bit kludgy, not following standards. It would be nice
however to maybe go to the cable guys and tell them -- connect us
officialy. Not because Oracle users did so. No, it's foolish reason.
Because it's Right, because it makes us closer to Standards, because
to be respected means to respect others. Etc, etc. etc.

It's sad that there was so much noise about it... I know I may not
be helping much to solve situation, but at least I'm trying.

Regards.
Dawid