Re: Thoughs after discussions at OSCON

> Random responses from a non-OSCONer:
>
>> The first item I think bears mention is the number of occasions I
>> had people ask me whether the project is losing steam, or "losing
>> out" to MySQL, or being no threat to Oracle.
>
> We certainly are not gaining "geek mindshare" as fast as we should.
> It doesn't help that O'Reilly seems to be in bed with MySQL AB
> (exhibit one: the joint MySQL conference).

It seems to me that APress is a plausible publisher to "bias towards;"
the last couple of books that I have found *very* interesting were
published by them.

They have published some things O'Reilly wouldn't (on zsh, Common
Lisp), in areas that actually have gotten them sales (as in "having to
do second printings").

Lisp people got in something of a snit because O'Reilly had a
published policy that they wouldn't take such books. The *wise* move
was and is to take would-be book offerings elsewhere.

> We need to look at all the things that MySQL is doing right, because
> our technical superiority alone is not going to save us. I've also
> started to think lately that our BSD license may be an even greater
> asset than our feature set. More about that later in a PP rant. :)
>
>> I was surprised, for instance, to see Oracle in a prominent place
>> near by us on the floor.
>
> Oracle was there? Anyone talk to them? What part of their product is
> "open source" anyway?

I didn't go and visit; I barely heard a peep about Oracle at the
conference.

>> find it's impossible to find administrators, PostgreSQL will be
>> written off as impossible to use. It would be a really bad time
>> for the DBA mixture to get "lean".
>
> It would be nice if we could emphasize that "if you can admin
> Oracle, you can admin Postgres." While the systems are vastly
> different, PG is so much easier to admin than Oracle I haven't met
> an Oracle DBA once who was not amazed at how easy it was to use
> after dealing with the thousands of knobs and levers that Oracle
> gives you. The important things such as memory usage, disk
> partitioning, tablespaces, and explain plans are all still there,
> they are just easier to use. :)

That's only true if the Oracle DBA takes seriously the jump to
PostgreSQL.

If they carry the baggage of the attitude that Oracle's marketing folk
dearly want to press on them, then they may prefer to play the "it
hasn't got the knobs and levers and is therefore inferior" game.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/
If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage.