Re: Rejecting weak passwords

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mark Mielke
Тема Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Дата
Msg-id 4AD765C6.80101@mark.mielke.cc
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 10/15/2009 01:44 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> I don't deal with prospective clients, which is where this comes from.
> I do deal with a team of (pre)sales engineers who complain about this,
> and maybe half-a-dozen other issues on a very regular basis. They tell
> me that PostgreSQL loses out in early stages of tech evals because of
> this issue, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. Sure it's almost
> certainly not the only reason, but they add up.
>    

A lot of evaluations are designed to fit exactly one product, and it's 
impossible to win here.

In my own company, I recently saw the most ridiculous (to me) 
evaluations over a suite of products, that effectively listed an exact 
implementation as requirements. This resulted in a huge split between 
people who considered the evaluation fair and who went with their choice 
for exactly that one product, and the rest of the people who called the 
evaluation a sham and refused to participate, choosing to instead use 
their own choice of products not caring about the outcome of the 
evaluation. The evaluation, by the way, included other "silly" 
statements, like how a database instance costs $48k in license fees, 
even though everybody knew we were already using PostgreSQL for $0k or 
even if we chose to be supported by one of the many PostgreSQL support 
companies, it would not cost $48k. Where did they get that number? 
Because they presumed they would go with Oracle. The evaluation was a 
sham from start to finish.

Perhaps you can see how little I value some arbitrary checkbox list on 
some "evaluation"? If people want to count PostgreSQL off the list from 
the start - they will, and there is not much you or I can do about it. 
Bowing to the pressure of fulfilling these checkboxes, when they'll just 
change them next time to something else that PostgreSQL doesn't quite 
do, is a waste of time.

We should do what is right to do. We should not be focusing on 
checkboxes raised by other people who are not competent enough to 
understand the subject matter or who have already made their choice, and 
the evaluation is just a rubber stamp to pretend they have done due 
diligence about justifying their choice compared to alternatives.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke<mark@mielke.cc>



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Fetter
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Rejecting weak passwords