Re: postgre vs MySQL

Greg Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
>> A silly question in this context:  If we know of a company that does
>> use PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we take the
>> liberty to publicise this somewhere anyway?

I notice Oracle (and sleepycat before them) had a lot of fun
pointing out when Microsoft uses BDB.

http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/07-jan/o17opensource.html
    You'll find Oracle Berkeley DB "under the hood" in everything
    from Motorola cell phones, Microsoft/Groove's collaboration suite

and it seems unlikely Microsoft gave them their blessings.

> Bad idea.  There are companies who consider being listed as a user of a
> product a sort of recommendation of that technology, and accordingly

Other reasons a company might get offended by this:

  * They might consider it a trade secret and a competitive advantage
    over competitors; and internally enjoy giggling when they see
    their competitors sign deals with expensive databases.

  * They might have a close business partnership with Microsoft
    or Oracle that could be strained if they support other databases.

I suspect my employer would not like it announced for both reasons.

> they will get really annoyed...asked to be removed from the list of
> those using PostgreSQL.  ... PostgreSQL inside, it's best not to
> publish the results unless you like to collect cease & desist letters.

While I agree companies are likely to get annoyed - just like fast
food companies do when you say how much trans-fats their products
contain; I'm rather curious what such a cease&desist letter would say.