Re: comp.database.postgresql.*

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Andrew Rawnsley
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 12:26 PM
> To: Pgsql General
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] comp.database.postgresql.*
>
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2004, at 1:56 PM, Max wrote:
>
> >
> > I am starting to believe that the issue behind all this fuss is an
> > identity
> > problem: does postgresql want to play side-by-side with the big
> > database
> > players and have an official, legal and legitimate newsgroup, or does
> > it
> > want to stay in the closet ?
> >
> > Max
> >
>
> 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).

This is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that postgresql
is perceived as a marginal database and that as such it would be
a good thing for it to be on the big8 newsgroups, and make people
realize that it's not that marginal at all.

Readers watch out: I don't mean to bruise anybody's ego by saying this,
and I am not trying to start a flame.

I have just observed that whenever I suggest using postgresql
instead of SQL server at work (because I *hate* SQL server),
all our distributers start to scream. Because they don't know
anything about it!

heck! I love this product!

Our customers pay big bucks for our systems, and they feel more comfortable
buying SQL server licenses or Oracle than dealing with postgresql. And that
pisses me off, because postgresql solves so many of our issues.... soooo...
a small step towards
not being that marginal could be towards having a legitimate newsgroup.

> Honestly, people here generally don't give a hoot what the other 'big'
> databases do (which is as opposite from an identity problem as I can think
off). The by-far
> easiest way to get a proposed
> feature rejected is to say 'we should do this because xxxx does it
> this way'. PR and marketing
> are not huge concerns on any of the lists other than advocacy. The
> various attempts to promote
> postgres (commercial or not) have generally been dismal, but somehow
> the product advances....

I agree 100%, but I think this is off topic.

> That being said, most people can understand that there is/may be a
> problem with the way the
> group is accessed for many people, or the way it should have set up
> whenever. However,
> to a large portion of this group it isn't a pressing issue right off,
> so there is significant inertia
> to overcome.
>

Right. For me, the day (not that far) we do integrate postgresql into our
product, I would like
to point my customers to a newsgroup, not to a high volume mailing list.

Max