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

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:25:34PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> >I do agree that its probably not worth allocating core resources to 
> >this, but spouting outdated FUD is really making you two look foolish.
> 
> And which FUD would this be?

That Feb. 31st is a valid date in MySQL. You can now configure it to
reject that (don't know if that's the default or not).

> >
> >You have to understand that MySQL evolves just like PostgreSQL does. So 
> >you better focus on advertising where PostgreSQL shines instead of 
> >poking fun at something you apparently do not follow.
> 
> Uhmmm, I am not even going to bother responding to this part. It is 
> obvious that *you* don't follow MySQL versus PostgreSQL.
> 
> No offense but the development models and thus evolution thereof are 
> completely different.

You just proved one of my points. It's pretty easy for executives to
understand that trying to store Feb. 31st in their database is probably
a bad idea, but arguments about development models and their impact on
software quality are likely to fall on deaf/befuddled ears.
-- 
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