On 09/12/2017 06:51 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the
>> major players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one. The
>> unfortunate reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big
>> company behind the open source project and few realize that PG has such
>> a great and diverse multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make
>> a point to bring it up whenever we get the chance.
>
> I agree with these points. Of course a competitive overview by a
> competitor might be taking a different approach for one or a number of
> other reasons. For example if price is one thing they are covering,
> things would be different if they are covering the official version of
> the software.
More to the point, they are not even true to their stated thesis:
"world’s largest organizations are using strategic initiatives to replace proprietary databases and expensive
licenseswith open source databases and enterprise subscriptions"
as the referenced version of postgres is a proprietary fork, not open
source.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
