Hi,
Chris Travers wrote:
>> Well, I guess that's a more polite way to put it, but it misses the real
>> point: MySQL does a lot of things that are at best not a very good way
>> to do them and at worst put your data at serious risk. Many people
>> simply have no idea about these issues. So while it'd be nice if these
>> people chose PostgreSQL over MySQL, I personally think it's more
>> important that they save themselves (and others) the pain that's likely
>> to follow from deciding to use MySQL.
>>
>>
> While you are correct in pointing this out, there is an issue here. Do
> we really want to position ourselves as talking bad about our
> competition publically? I say we don't simply because it is a very good
> way to drive away potential users.
Well, in case you didn't know MySQL had an unfair comparison to PostgreSQL right
in their manual. It didn't really drive away users, in fact it created the whole
generation of users who never saw PostgreSQL but repeated the BS from this
"comparison".
In fact they *still* have this comparison in manual's Russian translation:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/ru/compare-postgresql.html
I doubt anyone except me reads Russian here, but everyone may recognize the
"PostgreSQL" word.
> Also there is something to be said about not comparing yourself too much
> to your competition in the commercial world though much of this doesn't
> really apply here in the FOSS world. What I would like to see, however,
> are two things:
>
> 1) A maintained features card comparing FOSS databases. We could add a
> feature to the list called "Strict data integrity enforcement."
> 2) A maintained features card comparing PostgreSQL and commercial
> databases.RDBMS's.
Agree here. But I doubt it should be placed on the official site --- there are
several unofficial ones, and the prominent link from postgresql.org should be
sufficient. ;)
