Re: [HACKERS] [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Moving to -advocacy, since this isn't really about hacking anymore...

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:32:30AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >And MySQL is much closer to being a competitor now than they were in
> >4.1. And feature-wise they'll probably equal PostgreSQL in the next
> >release. Will the features be anywhere near as robust or well thought
> >out? No. But in a heck of a lot of companies that doesn't matter.
>
> Your kidding right? Have you seen their "features"? Look at what their
> stored procedures are actually capable of.

But it doesn't really matter from a marketing standpoint how badly the
feature sucks, so long as it's there. And if you want to believe the
marketing, they're actually more advanced than us, with "features" such
as replication and clustering.

> The only thing that MySQL *might* pull off is a really good storage
> backend finally.
>
> >Maybe a compatability layer isn't worth doing, but I certainly think
> >it's very much worthwhile for the community to do everything possible to
> >encourage migration from MySQL. We should be able to lay claim to most
> >advanced and most popular OSS database.
>
> Oh absolutely, I agree with you here but in order to do so in the most
> productive manner possible the community would have to be willing to be
> much more aggressive and much more antagnositic that I believe the
> community has the stomach for.

I don't think it has to necessarily be antagonistic. Simply looking at
how these features compare would probably shed a lot of light.

BTW, should anyone want to undertake some writing along these lines,
Pervasive will probably pay for it, depending on what exactly the topic
is:
http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/postgresql/partners_in_publishing.asp
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461