On 13 Nov 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> Hmm... maybe this goes back to the whole target audience thing, but I
> think we'd get a much bigger win by dropping names of folks using
> postgresql than we do by highlighting the free (as in beer) aspect of
> it. (disclaimer - I wrote the second ending)
Okay, the first name I'd "drop" from that second ending is RedHat, since
they no longer do "PostgreSQL" as PostgreSQL ... as for the other names,
do we have permission to use them? Several companies tend to be kinda
hesitant to advertise use of PgSQL, for fear of being "jumped" by Oracle
and such for their decision ...
>
> Robert Treat
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 13:34, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > Oh great ... I like them both? :(
> >
> > A mix-n-match of the two (purely cut-n-paste, needs to be cleaned), but:
> >
> > ====================
> > Following more than 16 years of development by hundreds of the world's
> > most generous and brilliant minds from the open source community,
> > PostgreSQL continues to make the decision between free software and
> > commercial databases "a simple choice between open source or an open
> > wallet."
> >
> > With it's long time support of an enterprise level feature set including
> > transactions, stored procedures, triggers, and subqueries PostgreSQL is
> > being used by many of todays most demanding businesses.
> >
> > Many companies and agencies can no longer afford the high costs and
> > constantly changing terms of licensed commercial software - making
> > PostgreSQL one of the most highly sought after free technologies in the
> > market today. With the release of v7.3 the decision to choose PostgreSQL
> > is now even easier.
> > ====================
> >
> > Maybe with a pointer to advocacy for the case studies provided by some of
> > hte big-un's?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
