Guys,
> You make an astute observation that I think should become a strategy of the
> advocacy team. That is to portray MySQL as a "hobby" database, but Postgres
> as a "production" database. I think this is a very easy stance to take,
> since I've always thought that. Anyone caught arguing that MySQL is better
> will show how much they don't know about Postgres or real databases.
And why are we "competing" against MySQL, exactly?
Look, the people who use MySQL aren't going to use PostgreSQL. They're
looking for a fast, simple database with no DBA requirements, which IS NOT
POSTGRESQL. Such databases have their niche just as we have ours.
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.
Now, enough, already.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
