On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 02:06, Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
> "Oracle = Saturn IV." ?!???
>
> Perhaps they claim to be. More like a shuttle with pretensions.
> Oracle was utterly unable to support our web site. And then
I'm surprised. There are many huge Oracle databases out there.
> they wanted a truely preposterous sum for their wretched
> software.
How do you think Larry pays for his racing yachts?
> Informix, on the other hand, has performed like, well, like a
> Saturn [which, by the way, the US could not build again ...
> apparently they lost the plans]. But it also costs a fair
> bit o' pocket change.
Who's want to build a 40-year-old rocket?
> Now, maybe if we take a couple of Titan IIs and stack them on
> top of each other ...
Better is to take a bunch of Titan engines and make a big lift
vehicle.
> Greg Williamson
> DBA GlobeXplorer LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Thu 9/18/2003 10:30 PM
> To: scott.marlowe
> Cc: Steve Crawford; Scott Holmes; PgSQL General ML
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL versus MySQL
>
> "scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> > ... Being honest and fair will win
> > hearts and minds, and when they need the Saturn 4 instead of the Estes
> > rocket, they'll remember who to come to.
>
> I like this analogy, though maybe you've overstretched. Perhaps:
>
> MySQL = Estes. Put in InnoDB, and you have a D engine ... but it's
> still a model rocket.
>
> Postgres = Titan II. Can boost LEO missions or small interplanetary
> probes. Never mind its ICBM heritage ;-)
>
> Oracle = Saturn IV. Can take you to the moon ... if you can afford
> the price tag.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
Spit in one hand, and wish for peace in the other.
Guess which is more effective...
