Derrick Rapley wrote:
> What I want to know is how can one persuade IT managers and decision
> makers to go with PostgreSQL, when most probably haven't even heard
> of it? Most buy either Oracle, Sybase, or MS SQL Server because
> that's all they know
Price - Licencing on proprietary databases is something fantasic. It
is laughably easy to run up a 6-figure licencing price tag setting up a
decent database installation based on proprietary databases. Those
6-figures can be better spent on other aspects of an installation.
Transparency - PgSQL is not a black box. In the very worst case, you
can track down and kill bugs yourself. Mostly though, the transparency
allows you to figure out the advanced capabilities of PgSQL through
examination of the workings.
Flexibility - A subset of transparency, the open APIs and the fact
that the boths sides of API bindings are visible in source code allows
easy and interesting extensions to the database. The PL/R statistical
extension to PgSQL is one of the most interesting things I've seen in
the database world in a while. PL/R only exists because of the
transparency and flexibility of the PgSQL framework.
However, if you *really* want PgSQL to start looking attractive to
managers and PHBs, you'll have to get a big company like IBM or HP or
Sun to start promoting it, as IBM has done Linux. Management-level
technology decisions are made on the basis of *references*. If
management can reference a trusted source who promotes the product, they
can feel safe about choosing it. That trusted source might be another
manager in the organization, or it might be a big multinational IT
company giving a stamp of approval.
> My second question is, "Why should I dedicate the time to gain
> expertise in PostgreSQL?"
Because it can't hurt, and because unlike Oracle it doesn't take that
long to learn. By all means, learn Oracle too, this isn't an either/or
proposition :)
P.
--
__
/
| Paul Ramsey
| Refractions Research
| Email: pramsey@refractions.net
| Phone: (250) 885-0632
\_
