Re: Comparing databases

After a long battle with technology, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian), an earthling, wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:01:00AM -0500, Ned Lilly wrote:
>> > > All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates
>> > > more problems than it solves. To use a favorite metaphor from
>> > > this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I
>> > > repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are many firms
>> > > providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z
>> > > companies.
>> >
>> > I second this.
>>
>> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is
>> supported by several different companies, ensuring that no one
>> company can drive the project in any one direction against the best
>> interests of the community"?
>
> How about:
>
> Me too. How about something along the lines of "Postgresql is
> supported by several different companies, preventing vendor
> lock-in. ..........................

I rather like a wording like...

"Support for PostgreSQL development and deployment is provided by a
number of different companies, alleviating the risks associated with
products controlled exclusively by a single vendor."

(Business-types really like the notion of "reducing risks.")
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
I have this nagging fear that everyone is out to make me paranoid.