Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories
> > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed
> > software then the latter seemed to win over.
> >
> > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like
> > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties',
> > etc.
>
> I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source
> database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and
> even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think
> the nominations were put forward by a bunch of people who've only ever heard
> of MySQL and PostgreSQL...
>
> (Not that I'd switch to SapDB ;) )
No question there is bias. 50% of the awards racket is just to generate
traffic of people who want to see who you picked. Red Hat DB won for
"Productivity Application" last year at LinuxWorld. I think they
just applied for everything.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
