Thread: MySQL drops support for most distributions
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not support for Linux in general."
David Goodenough wrote: > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss > > "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, > when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' > MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux > and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to > sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out > from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported > on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported > platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not > support for Linux in general." I *really* hope this helps convince people to migrate to PostgreSQL. Every time I need to support MySQL I go that much more gray. :/ This could be good. Madi
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:50, David Goodenough wrote: > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss > > "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, > when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' > MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux > and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to > sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out > from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported > on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported > platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not > support for Linux in general." So, in a similar vein, which PostgreSQL support companies support Debian, for instance?
Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:50, David Goodenough wrote: > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss > > > > "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, > > when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' > > MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to > > sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out > > from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported > > on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported > > platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not > > support for Linux in general." > > So, in a similar vein, which PostgreSQL support companies support > Debian, for instance? I bet Credativ does. The good thing is that there are several companies supporting Postgres, so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole.
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 15:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:50, David Goodenough wrote: > > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss > > > > > > "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, > > > when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' > > > MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > > and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to > > > sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out > > > from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported > > > on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported > > > platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not > > > support for Linux in general." > > > > So, in a similar vein, which PostgreSQL support companies support > > Debian, for instance? > > I bet Credativ does. Command Prompt supports PostgreSQL on the following platforms: Full Support: Debian/Ubuntu, RH/FC, SuSE FreeBSD (Stable releases only) Win32 Solaris PostgreSQL only support (meaning how to configure the OS is up to you): Any Linux not listed above, e.g; Slackware, Mandriva etc... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > The good thing is that there are several companies supporting Postgres, > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 12:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:50, David Goodenough wrote: > > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss > > > > > > "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, > > > when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' > > > MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > > and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to > > > sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out > > > from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported > > > on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported > > > platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not > > > support for Linux in general." > > > > So, in a similar vein, which PostgreSQL support companies support > > Debian, for instance? > > I bet Credativ does. > > The good thing is that there are several companies supporting Postgres, > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole. I was kinda thinking the same thing. Man, must suck to be tied to the one true company for your database when they stop supporting your OS etc... And what about MySQL windows flavor?
> The good thing is that there are several companies supporting > Postgres, > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole. Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support" for MySqueal in some similar sense? - John Burger MITRE
John D. Burger wrote: >> The good thing is that there are several companies supporting Postgres, >> so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole. > > Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support" for > MySqueal in some similar sense? > There probably are, but one of the major selling points of MySQL to corporate types is 'official' support from the 'offical' company. -- Russ.
* John D. Burger (john@mitre.org) wrote:
> >The good thing is that there are several companies supporting
> >Postgres,
> >so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole.
>
> Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support"
> for MySqueal in some similar sense?
This is, truely, a very interesting question. I'm not 100% sure about
this but I thought that the non-GPL version of MySQL was tied in with
their support contracts. If this is the case (and I could be wrong)
there's no option to go elsewhere for support if you're using the
non-GPL license (required if you don't want to give out your source code
to anything which touches MySQL, or at least that's my understanding of
how they interpret the 'derivative' concept in the GPL).
So, there may be third-party companies which provide support for the
GPL'd version of MySQL, but alot of people use the non-GPL version
because they don't want to be bound by the GPL to release their source
code. I'd be very curious if MySQL has an official say on this..
Of course, they could switch to PostgreSQL as it uses the BSD license...
:)
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachment
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:20 -0500, John D. Burger wrote:
> > The good thing is that there are several companies supporting
> > Postgres,
> > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole.
>
> Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support"
> for MySqueal in some similar sense?
Of course :) but... Fortune 2500+ for the most part will *not* use a
third party for support for something like MySQL.
MySQL is making a pretty bold statement here. They are saying, for
business, and we mean business, we support RH and Suse which are *the*
business Linux platforms.
It really isn't that different that was most other commercial entities
do.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> - John Burger
> MITRE
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to "John D. Burger" <john@mitre.org>: > > The good thing is that there are several companies supporting > > Postgres, > > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole. > > Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support" > for MySqueal in some similar sense? Couple of years ago when I was part owner of a company, we tried to become an "official" MySQL support provider. Now, this is a three man operation, we had about 10 clients and were looking to expand into the MySQL space. We found the money MySQL wanted to become "official" to be excessive. Additionally, for that money, we didn't get promised anything -- we couldn't even get an estimate of how many potential clients there would be in our area. After much discussion with the MySQL people, we finally decided it was too much money to take the risk. I wonder how many other potential support companies felt the same way? Perhaps that was a bad business decision on our part, but we'll never know now -- we shut the company down a year ago. Anyway, I guess my point is that it was a whole lot easier to get listed as a company supporting PostgreSQL than it was MySQL. We were listed on the commercial support part of the site the entire time we were in business -- got at least one client from it. I don't think we did any MySQL support the whole time we were in business. Perhaps big companies with lotsa money wouldn't find MySQL's offerings to be a bad deal, but we couldn't justify it and I suspect a lot of small companies can't. Anyway, now I do PostgreSQL work for Collaborative Fusion and I'm much happier because it's not my job to worry about those kind of business relationship decisions -- there are competent people handling that. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support" >> for MySqueal in some similar sense? > > Of course :) but... Fortune 2500+ for the most part will *not* use a > third party for support for something like MySQL. Sure, but they won't use PG either, for essentially the same reason, since =all= PG support is "third party". - John Burger MITRE
John D. Burger wrote: > > Sure, but they won't use PG either, for essentially the same reason, > since =all= PG support is "third party". > > They would probably use EnterpriseDB though :-) -- Tony Caduto AM Software Design http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql Your best bet for Postgresql Administration
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:00 -0600, Tony Caduto wrote:
> John D. Burger wrote:
> >
> > Sure, but they won't use PG either, for essentially the same reason,
> > since =all= PG support is "third party".
> >
> >
> They would probably use EnterpriseDB though :-)
Or Command Prompt like several extremely large companies already do ;)
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Hi, John D. Burger wrote: > Sure, but they won't use PG either, for essentially the same reason, > since =all= PG support is "third party". Maybe. But at least these third parties can take the source and build their own product on top of it, without significant limitations. So one can debate if i.e. EnterpriseDB is providing third party support for PostgreSQL or first-hand support for their own product :-) Regards Markus
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:37 -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to "John D. Burger" <john@mitre.org>:
>
> > > The good thing is that there are several companies supporting
> > > Postgres,
> > > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole.
> >
> > Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support"
> > for MySqueal in some similar sense?
>
> Couple of years ago when I was part owner of a company, we tried to
> become an "official" MySQL support provider.
>
> Now, this is a three man operation, we had about 10 clients and were
> looking to expand into the MySQL space.
>
> We found the money MySQL wanted to become "official" to be excessive.
> Additionally, for that money, we didn't get promised anything -- we
> couldn't even get an estimate of how many potential clients there
> would be in our area. After much discussion with the MySQL people,
> we finally decided it was too much money to take the risk.
>
> I wonder how many other potential support companies felt the same
> way? Perhaps that was a bad business decision on our part, but we'll
> never know now -- we shut the company down a year ago.
What you describe above is a very similar thing that brought CMD (as its
current incarnation) into being.
We tried to get tier 4 support from a little known company called Great
Bridge years ago....
The basic idea was that we would call them maybe 4 times a year but
wanted to work with them because they had the "name" for PostgreSQL.
They wanted 16k a year.
Now they are dust, and CMD is what it is today ;)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> John D. Burger wrote:
>> Sure, but they won't use PG either, for essentially the same reason,
>> since =all= PG support is "third party".
> So one can debate if i.e. EnterpriseDB is providing third party support
> for PostgreSQL or first-hand support for their own product :-)
The other point I'd make against John's argument is that there are a
whole lot of Fortune 500 companies buying Red Hat support, and RH is
effectively a third party for large chunks of Linux. (Of course,
there are also large chunks for which Red Hat employees write as much
code as anyone; but certainly that's not true for every package.)
I think the real criterion for big companies is not so much whether
you're supporting your "own" product as whether you're big enough to
be worth suing if things go wrong.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > The other point I'd make against John's argument is that there are a > whole lot of Fortune 500 companies buying Red Hat support, and RH is > effectively a third party for large chunks of Linux. (Of course, > there are also large chunks for which Red Hat employees write as much > code as anyone Yeah, I've heard that. :) > I think the real criterion for big companies is not so much whether > you're supporting your "own" product as whether you're big enough to > be worth suing if things go wrong. I think you're right, and MySQL is unlikely to allow anybody else to get that big. - John Burger MITRE
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:20 -0500, John D. Burger wrote: >> Surely there are also third-party companies that provide "support" >> for MySqueal in some similar sense? Yeah. HP for example [links below]. HP announced support for Debian and MySQL (and the JBoss Stack as well). > Of course :) but... Fortune 2500+ for the most part will *not* use a > third party for support for something like MySQL. You've got to be kidding. Surely many Fortune 2500+ would prefer their MySQL support from HP than from a little company like MySQL-AB, wouldn't they? http://h20219.www2.hp.com/services/cache/442408-0-0-225-121.html http://h20219.www2.hp.com/services/cache/390925-0-0-0-121.html
FWIW, there is a follow-up note on the original posting from a MySQL person: "we are just starting to roll out [Enterprise] binaries... We don't build binaries for Debian in part because the Debiancommunity does a good job themselves... If you call MySQL and you have support we support you if you are running Debian(the same with Suse, RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu and others)... someone in Sales was left with the wrong information" Greg Williamson DBA GlobeXplorer LLC -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Scott Marlowe Sent: Wed 12/13/2006 10:11 AM To: Alvaro Herrera Cc: David Goodenough; pgsql general Subject: Re: [GENERAL] MySQL drops support for most distributions On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 12:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:50, David Goodenough wrote: > > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/13/1515217&from=rss > > > > > > "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, > > > when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' > > > MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > > and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to > > > sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out > > > from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported > > > on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported > > > platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not > > > support for Linux in general." > > > > So, in a similar vein, which PostgreSQL support companies support > > Debian, for instance? > > I bet Credativ does. > > The good thing is that there are several companies supporting Postgres, > so whatever one of them does it does not affect the market as a whole. I was kinda thinking the same thing. Man, must suck to be tied to the one true company for your database when they stop supporting your OS etc... And what about MySQL windows flavor? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ------------------------------------------------------- Click link below if it is SPAM gsw@globexplorer.com "https://mailscanner.globexplorer.com/dspam/dspam.cgi?signatureID=458041d0161931045513543&user=gsw@globexplorer.com&retrain=spam&template=history&history_page=1" !DSPAM:458041d0161931045513543! -------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/13/06 20:05, Gregory S. Williamson wrote: > FWIW, there is a follow-up note on the original posting from a > MySQL person: > > "we are just starting to roll out [Enterprise] binaries... We > don't build binaries for Debian in part because the Debian > community does a good job themselves... If you call MySQL and you > have support we support you if you are running Debian (the same > with Suse, RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu and others)... someone in Sales > was left with the wrong information" Oh, darn! - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFFgLliS9HxQb37XmcRApMPAJ90kyMrGrifpzC0cJTgzfNKkAQhzwCYtNn0 UnCPrUfmaIvSx1btNF0jSg== =TxxO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
This is a common misunderstanding and it is incorrect, at least in my experience. I work at a company with >10K people. I oversee computer architecture and operations for Research (~800 people) and I work very closely with our large IT group.
In order to understand how we purchase hardware, software, or support, you have to understand what's important to us. A successful company must focus on their products and not irrelevant details about how they gets produced and delivered. Employees may personally care about the detailed means to product, but successful companies and their managers -- and, ultimately, customers and stock holders -- do not.
The major concerns for our purchases include: 1) Does it meet our functional requirements? 2) Does it integrate with our existing infrastructure? 3) Can we identify a support channel? and 4) What's the risk relative to other options? These days, OSS packages frequently exceed functional requirements over proprietary alternatives. Apache is an irrefutable example. Big vendors often have proven track records for (2) and (3), but it's not the bigness per se that appeals. We choose small vendors when that's appropriate for a need. Whom we sue when things go wrong is almost never a consideration during purchasing. If a relationship goes south, a suit is unlikely to address our primary goal, the product.
Now, lest you think I'm a corporate troll on the pg lists, I should tell you that I'm probably among the most visible and vocal open source supporters here. I've long railed against proprietary software -- not because of support issues but because I view *some* proprietary software as a real threat to our long-term success. What's important is that our data are usable in ways we see fit, without encumbrance from vendors. This is not the goal of big vendors who require depend on lock-in for growth.
The EnterpriseDB folks have the right strategy. Nobody wants Oracle itself, but rather they want database services that behave like Oracle (er, except the parts that annoy). If I can't tell that I'm not talking to Oracle but getting the "right" answers, why should I care? Cheaper too? Even better. Oracle should be scared because it seems inevitable that their database business will be commoditized out of existence.
Concern for risk is perhaps the most elusive problem for OSS providers and supporters. Companies don't like risk, and *any* change to a working process is a risk. Much to my chagrin, this risk makes it difficult to unseat even mediocre products. We should all cheer EnterpriseDB's success in booking some big name companies. Their successes will establish PostgreSQL as a reliable, cost-effective, and empowering alternative to proprietary databases and therefore decrease the risk concerns.
The only reason I spent this much time weighing in is because I'm thrilled with PostgreSQL (er, sorry Tom, Postgres) and appreciate and respect the terrific work done in this community. Thank you.
Cheers,
Reece
I think the real criterion for big companies is not so much whether you're supporting your "own" product as whether you're big enough to be worth suing if things go wrong.
This is a common misunderstanding and it is incorrect, at least in my experience. I work at a company with >10K people. I oversee computer architecture and operations for Research (~800 people) and I work very closely with our large IT group.
In order to understand how we purchase hardware, software, or support, you have to understand what's important to us. A successful company must focus on their products and not irrelevant details about how they gets produced and delivered. Employees may personally care about the detailed means to product, but successful companies and their managers -- and, ultimately, customers and stock holders -- do not.
The major concerns for our purchases include: 1) Does it meet our functional requirements? 2) Does it integrate with our existing infrastructure? 3) Can we identify a support channel? and 4) What's the risk relative to other options? These days, OSS packages frequently exceed functional requirements over proprietary alternatives. Apache is an irrefutable example. Big vendors often have proven track records for (2) and (3), but it's not the bigness per se that appeals. We choose small vendors when that's appropriate for a need. Whom we sue when things go wrong is almost never a consideration during purchasing. If a relationship goes south, a suit is unlikely to address our primary goal, the product.
Now, lest you think I'm a corporate troll on the pg lists, I should tell you that I'm probably among the most visible and vocal open source supporters here. I've long railed against proprietary software -- not because of support issues but because I view *some* proprietary software as a real threat to our long-term success. What's important is that our data are usable in ways we see fit, without encumbrance from vendors. This is not the goal of big vendors who require depend on lock-in for growth.
The EnterpriseDB folks have the right strategy. Nobody wants Oracle itself, but rather they want database services that behave like Oracle (er, except the parts that annoy). If I can't tell that I'm not talking to Oracle but getting the "right" answers, why should I care? Cheaper too? Even better. Oracle should be scared because it seems inevitable that their database business will be commoditized out of existence.
Concern for risk is perhaps the most elusive problem for OSS providers and supporters. Companies don't like risk, and *any* change to a working process is a risk. Much to my chagrin, this risk makes it difficult to unseat even mediocre products. We should all cheer EnterpriseDB's success in booking some big name companies. Their successes will establish PostgreSQL as a reliable, cost-effective, and empowering alternative to proprietary databases and therefore decrease the risk concerns.
The only reason I spent this much time weighing in is because I'm thrilled with PostgreSQL (er, sorry Tom, Postgres) and appreciate and respect the terrific work done in this community. Thank you.
Cheers,
Reece
-- Reece Hart, http://harts.net/reece/, GPG:0x25EC91A0 ./universe -G 6.672e-11 -e 1.602e-19 -protonmass 1.673e-27 -uspres bush kernel warning: universe consuming too many resources. Killing. universe killed due to catastrophic leadership. Try -uspres carter. |
On Dec 13, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch> writes: >> John D. Burger wrote: >>> Sure, but they won't use PG either, for essentially the same reason, >>> since =all= PG support is "third party". > >> So one can debate if i.e. EnterpriseDB is providing third party >> support >> for PostgreSQL or first-hand support for their own product :-) > > The other point I'd make against John's argument is that there are a > whole lot of Fortune 500 companies buying Red Hat support, and RH is > effectively a third party for large chunks of Linux. (Of course, > there are also large chunks for which Red Hat employees write as much > code as anyone; but certainly that's not true for every package.) > > I think the real criterion for big companies is not so much whether > you're supporting your "own" product as whether you're big enough to > be worth suing if things go wrong. We sell a postgresql-based product into some very large, household name US and international, companies. In some cases we've been the first postgresql instance into otherwise Oracle or MySQL focused companies. I'm pretty sure we're smaller than any of the third-party postgresql support companies, so we'd be far less interesting to sue too. Cheers, Steve
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > FreeBSD (Stable releases only) I suppose you meant stable _and_ releases? ;) -- Alban Hertroys alban@magproductions.nl magproductions b.v. T: ++31(0)534346874 F: ++31(0)534346876 M: I: www.magproductions.nl A: Postbus 416 7500 AK Enschede // Integrate Your World //