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

In response to Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>:

> 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 was a reference, not intended to be a perfect comparison.

EDB claims to be PG community-oriented, thus they are held to a higher
standard in their dealings with the community.

But there's a bit more to it.  Open source, by it's very nature, has an air
of "doing good for the world" to it.  Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat
implied by anyone who claims to be a proponent of open source.

> 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).

While I'm sure everyone has their own opinion on this, the China incident
lowered my opinion of Google.  My initial reaction was "Well, they had a
good run, now they're going down the drain."

> > 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.

Thus my comment that I can understand their reasons.  I still think it's the
obligation of anyone who is capable to stand up to bullshit like this and
fight back.  Yes, it sucks, it will require EDB to carefully and loudly
debunk any poorly done benchmarks.  It'll cost them extra money.

But that does not change the question of whether or not it's the right thing
to do.  It only creates the question of whether or not EDB is strong enough
to take on that battle at this time, and whether they're committed enough
to do it.

Here's a question for someone at EDB: If I ran a benchmark that demonstrates
that database X is faster than EDB, then present my findings to your people
and you find it to be honestly and fairly done, would you allow me to
publish it?

If the answer is "yes", then I find no problem with your approach.  If the
answer is "no", then EDB drops down to an 8 in my view.

But again, that's just me.  I can't speak for the masses.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com