On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 22:42, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2003 at 9:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Our "competitors" are MS SQL, SQLAnywhere, Oracle, and DB2. Business-class
> > databases. The tech press likes to focus on MySQL vs. PostgreSQL because
> > they haven't caught up to the idea that an OSS database could compete with
> > commmercial offerings. When *you* focus on MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, YOU ARE
> > BUYING IN TO THEIR IGNORANCE, and helping the press compartmentalize Postgres
> > as an alternative to MySQL.
>
> Agreed. Druming our features is the way to go. Not slamming other *OR*
> defending ourselves.
>
The truth is that the reason we have many of these postgresql vs. mysql
is because advocates of mysql often use old information and bad database
theory in their arguments. For example, if you look at other open source
databases like firebird or sapdb, you never hear arguments that
transactions, triggers, foreign keys, views, subselects etc... are
unnecessary. IMHO "competing" with mysql is pointless, because I think
we already "beat" them on our own merits; but we do need to defend
ourselves when people make false claims about postgresql, and we need
should advocate sound database fundamentals as well, whether they come
from mysql, oracle, m$ or whoever.
Robert Treat
