Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease
Date
Msg-id 200707131233.20394.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease  (Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>)
Responses Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease  (Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On Friday 13 July 2007 11:37, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to "Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of
> > EnterpriseDB.
> >
> > First, let me address the benchmarking issue.  We do restrict anyone
> > besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB
> > Advanced Server.  It is a standard practice that almost every other
> > commercial vendor follows.  After all, we don't want other companies
> > hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster.  It is one
> > of the benefits of being a proprietary product.
>
> Unfortunately, you are also an open-source-friendly company.  I want to
> start out by saying how much I appreciate that fact.
>
> But the truth is that bigshot open-source companies are held to a higher
> standard than other companies.  Look at the slack Google took with the
> whole China thing.  Anyone else would have gone unnoticed.
>

FWIW that was really over the fact that Google touted "do no evil" as part of
the company mission.  It had nothing to do with thier open-source-ness, if
anything they get a pass on a lot of things *because* they are open-source
friendly, not in spite of it).

> And restricting people from publishing benchmarks is wrong.  I do
> understand your position -- competitors hobbling your product is very evil.
>  But, in spite of sounding childish, "two wrongs don't make a right".
>

When Great Bridge did it's initial performance testing of databases, it found
PostgreSQL performance was already on par with other database systems, and
this is close to 10 years ago.  But a slew of poorley concieved and
improperly executed benchmarks from netizens (usually comparing us with
MySQL) has plauged postgresql with a reputation of poor performance for years
that honestly has not been eliminated to this day.  Why anyone, especially
people in this community, would expect someone else to willingly open
themselves up to that treatment is beyond me.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Darcy Buskermolen
Date:
Subject: Re: Regarding Distributed Database features
Next
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: Regarding Distributed Database features