Jason, Greg,
> The two share the same development style (open source). Unfortunately, those
> who don't already know, read these articles and get the wrong impressions. I
> know Postgres is more appropriately compared to Oracle, but they don't. If
> they see all the MySQL press and then see how bad it is as a DB, they will
> probably assume that Postgres falls into the same category.
<snip>
> And sir, when I "buy into their ignorance" it is only to grow the dichotomy
> of the two. Maybe I am wrong, maybe we shouldn't have a MySQL separation
> effort. Maybe we should just let ourselves be lumped in with them. *Shudder*
> I think not. Therefore we must engage in these "battles" against MySQL. I
> think we'd be worse off not fighting them.
But you see, that's exactly my point. We will *not* differentiate ourselves
from MySQL by slamming them at every opportunity. We will only build
PostgreSQL's user base by championing Postgres' features and
standards-compliance.
To give you an analogy: Three years ago, Willie Brown and Client Reilly were
the two lead candidates for Mayor of San Francisco. They spent the first six
months of their campaign slinging mud at each other ... to the point that
many San Franciscans said that they would stay home from the polls rather
than vote for either of them. Then, on the last day of the filing deadline,
Tom Ammiano announced that he was running ... and grabbed 49% of the runnoff
vote.
Or another analogy: Microsoft recently hired a PR think tank to analyze their
efforts to stamp out Linux through their various FUD campaigns against Linux,
OSS, and the GPL. The think tank found out that MS's attempt to slam Linux
had, in fact, made people more aware of OSS, and more interested in it, than
they would have been on their own.
I think you can see the analogy, yes? We should promote Postgresql by
promoting Postgresql ... NOT by slamming MySQL.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
