>> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 16:38 -0500, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:10:56AM -0500, Tony Caduto wrote:
>>>>> For a high level corp manager all they ever hear about is MS SQL Server,
>>>>> Oracle and DB2, and the more it costs the more they think it is what
>>>>> they need :-)
>>>>
>>>> I think that description is false. At a certain point in the
>>>> management hierarchy, the only way anyone has the ability to evaluate
>>>> something is on the basis of reputation.
>>>
>>> I think that description is false. At a certain point in the management
>>> hierarchy, the only way anyone has the ability to evaluate something is on
>>> the basis of....
>>>
>>> - if there is someone they can sue.
>>
>> Good luck attempting to sue Microsoft, Oracle or IBM for deficiencies in
>> their database products.
>
> Suing someone is not the real reason. It's the excuse given to one's
> boss. The real reason is the "Nobody ever got fired for using IBM"
> mentality. If you use something that your superiors recognize as the
> industry leader and it doesn't work out, who would blame you?
>
> It's CYA. And it's wimpy.
Yep. That's exactly it!
Here's a feel good story for you...
A couple of companies ago where we were small and I got to make the
decisions, we decided to build our app on FreeBSD/PHP/PostgreSQL. And all
was well, since we were small and people trusted me. Then we got bought
out by a big company. The first thing they wanted us to do was rewrite
for Linux/Java/Oracle. Then one of the sales guys wanted us to add
SQLServer support cause it would look good on the feature sheet. Note that
99% of the time this was a hosted solution. I left about a year ago and
just recently learned that for one of their new products (deployable not
hosted) they were going with PostgreSQL :-)
-philip
