agreed, a while back i actually contacted rob malda and offered
to convert slashdot to postgres.. he asked why i would want to do this
, said postgres's features yada yada.. his reply
.. that's dandy but we don't need those features.
sad to say but mysql has a niche and slashdot fills it.
jeff
On Thu, 18 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Info on the new slashdot.org setup
> > >
> > > <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/18/1427203&mode=nocomment>
> > >
> > > interesting because of the plans (meaning $$$) they have to improve
> > > MySql, and because they are the flagship MySql site/application.
> > >
> > > In the comment page, replying to the usual "Why not PostgreSql?" thread
> > > someone pointed out an extract from the MySql docs that seems to me
> > > blatantly false
> > > (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/18/1427203&cid=131).
> >
> > Just finished reading the thread. I am surprised how many people
> > slammed them on their MySQL over PostgreSQL decision. People are
> > slamming MySQL all over the place. :-)
> >
> > Seems like inertia was the reason to stay with MySQL. What that means
> > to me is that for their application space, PostgreSQL already has
> > superior technology, and people realize it. This means we are on our
> > way up, and MySQL is, well, ....
>
> In SlashDot's defence here ... I dooubt there is much they do that would
> require half of what we offer ... it *very* little INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
> and *alot* of SELECT ...
>
>
