After a long battle with technology, Bob@hotchkiss.org ("Bob Powell"), an earthling, wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I find the recent articles in various trade publications a little
> disturbing due to the lack of PostgrSQL mention. I continue to see
> articles about how IBM may be considering MYSQL for development an
> open_source web database.
>
> Why isn't PostgreSQL being considered or talked about by major industry
> giants? As a DBA I know that Postgres is far superior to MYSQL but if
> the industry directs it's energies towards open-source database this
> coming year I think somehow PostgreSQL needs to be represented better.
For IBM, in particular, it would be hugely counterproductive to point
people to something that might take away from the sales of their own
products. After all, they bought Informix and Universe, and developed
DB/2. There's presumably some money in the latter.
Furthermore, there's presumably some money in getting people to adopt
a product that has rudimentary support for what they need, and then,
when scalability proves troublesome, migrate them to DB/2.
Mind you, as the recent changes to the licensing and marketing of
MySQL AB get better known, it is also possible that IBM would
(correctly) perceive them as competition (irrespective of technical
merits), and either demand money for promoting the product, or cease
promoting it.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
"very few people approach me in real life and insist on proving they
are drooling idiots." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
