On Thursday 18 September 2003 2:45 pm, Scott Holmes wrote:
> Andrew L. Gould wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 September 2003 04:04 pm, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> >>> I think the below just about says it all:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.commandprompt.com/images/mammoth_versus_dolphin_500.j
> >>>pg
>
> Not exactly the kind of image I'd like to project, especially since
> I care about dolphins (at least non-iconified dolphins)
More to the point, why is it deemed necessary to equate PostgreSQL
with MySQL? Constantly doing that creates the image that the two are
somehow comparable products (and that PostgreSQL has an inferiority
complex).
BMW might compare its cars to Mercedes or other cars percieved to be
in the "luxury class" but it would never compare them to Ford or
Hyundai - to do so would create the impression that BMW and Hyundai
are in the same class. PostgreSQL should do the same.
I think the much more effective pitch is the dismissive one: sure, you
can get a lot done with MySQL - it will probably work fine for many
projects...Oh, but what about true transactions - are you ever going
to need those? Or bulletproof reliability? Or true MVCC? Have you
looked into the license restrictions? We just wanted you to know that
when you run into these issues in MySQL, we'll be here for you.
Meanwhile, if we want to pick a fight we should at least pick one with
a database in our own class.
Cheers,
Steve
