Thread: Your database comparison article
Mr. Kaufman, I quite liked your article about MySQL vs. MS SQL Server: http://www.zdnet.com.au/builder/architect/database/story/0,2000034918,20272967,00.htm As a participant in the PostgreSQL Advocacy group, I'd like to invite you to do a PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server comparison as a follow-up article. Since I am an experienced professional admin in both database systems, I can help you get set up for such a comparison. I look forward to hearing from you. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Mr. Kaufman, > > I quite liked your article about MySQL vs. MS SQL Server: > http://www.zdnet.com.au/builder/architect/database/story/0,2000034918,20 27 > 2967,00.htm > I'm not sure I agree. The article was full of blanket generalizations (i.e. performance: advantage MySQL) with little or no factual basis beyond the author's presumed knowledge. I'm being nitpicky, but these are generalizations have been hurting postgres for some time (slow, difficult to install, etc. etc.). The rest of the article was mostly a rundown of MySQL's feature list without much of a technical comparison. The correlation between performance and complexity, (simpler, therefore faster) is a false one and there are many data paradigms to evaluate before drawing performance conclusions. The subtle irony I picked up on was the article's title: "MySQL or SQL Server: Look beyond politics and hype" was for an article which IMHO was mostly hype. Oh well. Merlin
Merlin, > I'm not sure I agree. The article was full of blanket generalizations > (i.e. performance: advantage MySQL) with little or no factual basis > beyond the author's presumed knowledge. <grin> "You'll get more ants with honey than with salt." Regardless what anyone thinks of the first article's quality, comparisons of Postgres vs. MSSQL are *exactly* what we want to see in print. And we certainly won't get any cooperation from the writer by criticizing him. I cannot count the number of journalists we "turned around" on OpenOffice.org by simply writing them and offering to help with their next articles/technical problems. With just a dozen volunteers writing nice, polite, helpful e-mails to news writers, we were able to make OOo the 2nd or 3rd best known OSS project on the globe. You'd be surprised how little positive feedback tech journalists get ... a little goes a long way. Or, to put it another way: who are you more likely to help on PGSQL-NOVICE: the newbie who pleads ignorance and begs politely for assistance, or the curmudegeon who tells us Postgres docs are crap and he can't find anything? BTW, this list has public archives. So if you criticize a journalist, please be very aware that s/he may read your post. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:02, Josh Berkus wrote: > Merlin, > > > I'm not sure I agree. The article was full of blanket generalizations > > (i.e. performance: advantage MySQL) with little or no factual basis > > beyond the author's presumed knowledge. > > <grin> "You'll get more ants with honey than with salt." > > Regardless what anyone thinks of the first article's quality, comparisons of > Postgres vs. MSSQL are *exactly* what we want to see in print. And we > certainly won't get any cooperation from the writer by criticizing him. > Given that the article is fairly well laid out, and doesn't go into to much technical detail, just reading it made me think of where postgresql would fit in comparison of the three. When contacting journalists like this, do you think it best to send in these thoughts already written down, or just wait and see if the author responds back? Robert Treat
Josh Berkus wrote: > Merlin, > > Regardless what anyone thinks of the first article's quality, comparisons > of > Postgres vs. MSSQL are *exactly* what we want to see in print. And we > certainly won't get any cooperation from the writer by criticizing him. Point taken. Also, there is no reason to believe the author's knowledge, while presumed, is lacking in any way. By the way, getting postgres mentioned in any publication is a good thing, so kudos to you for doing your job: it's more than I've done! (mostly limited to expressing my opinion). Merlin
Merlin, > Point taken. Also, there is no reason to believe the author's > knowledge, while presumed, is lacking in any way. By the way, getting > postgres mentioned in any publication is a good thing, so kudos to you > for doing your job: it's more than I've done! (mostly limited to > expressing my opinion). Which is fine, on a mailing list. I haven't done much lately either ... heck, I wouldn't have seen that article except I have a collegue who spends all his "free" time web-surfing an obsessively sends me links. Honestly, getting the press to like you is easy, you just have to like *them*. Reporters so often get treated like scum or at least condescended to by the subjects they cover. Establishing a friendly rapport with a reporter can ensure our project literally years of favorable coverage. This is *especially* true in the online-only tech press, where stringers are paid so little that their writing is practically a hobby. At some point in the future, we'll have to centralize contacts with the press. However, there are so few of us right now that it's not really an issue. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco