Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Personally I think the calculator/wires approach is better from an
> > engineering perspective, but it can be a handicap in the user experience
> > and checkbox categories --- ease of use is perhaps not our strong point.
> > Much of our open source value is being different, in both cost,
> > reliability, and configurability.
>
> I found this true of a lot of tools. I still remember when the mutt
> developers argued against putting IMAP in their solution because they
> thought there might be a better "IMAP component" client out there.
> Eventually, such arguments are dropped, as the practical sense on the
> matter says that tight integration is a requirement.
>
> I don't see how PostgreSQL has really failed in this regard. Maybe
> Oracle comes out-of-box with more features - but this doesn't make it
> necessarily a more "complete" solution - it just means it has more bells
> and whistles. A bicycle doesn't need a ticking card mounted through the
> spokes for it to be considered a "complete solution". :-) Somebody might
> one day want that "feature" - but it's extra - it's not core.
Agreed. Many commercial database solutions start to look like
Frankenstein with all the bolted-on components.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
