On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >Ugh. I know I might be a little more sensitive than most on this point,
> > but it kind of begs the question why did the supporting companies fail.
> > Why volunteer that?
>
> With due respect, at least two companies (pgSQL, Inc. and Command
> Prompt, Inc.) have a long standing stability within the open source
> community. Actually now that I think about it, we are older than pgSQL,
> Inc. ;). Anyway I think it would be more worth stating that
> their is long standing, stable companies available to support PostgreSQL
> versus the fact that PostgreSQL has survived bad VC investment (no
> offense).
>
I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better
wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come
and gone but postgresql continues on"
still, might be best to avoid that whole end of it if we can... the only
database i think it stacks up against is mysql, maybe firebird, and spadb.
your just not going to convince anyone they should go with postgresql due to
mutliple support options and the oft chance that oracle/ibm/m$ might go
under...
although... what is the db that ibm recently dropped support for?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL