Re: Rejecting weak passwords
От | Mark Mielke |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4AD8A1E9.1020104@mark.mielke.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rejecting weak passwords (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rejecting weak passwords
(Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/16/2009 11:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> Too many of those caveats, and it's easy to see how we can be >> discounted early in the evaluation phase. It's not helped that often >> these lists will be drawn up by people used to working with the >> commercial DBMSs, so we probably wouldn't get extra points for having >> a dozen procedural languages, or other features that are largely >> unique to PostgreSQL, no matter how cool and useful they are. >> > Yep, this is illustrating something that is pretty basic to open source > --- that is open source often provides the tools for a solution, rather > than a complete solution. I often think of open source as providing a > calculator with wires sticking out, rather than calculator buttons; the > wires allow more flexibility, but they are harder to use. > Although often true - I think this is selling PostgreSQL a little short. It is a self-contained solution for what it does best, and for those that need more - there are better frameworks designed to be integrated that PostgreSQL is able to integrate with. PostgreSQL isn't a calculator with wires - if anything, I think PostgreSQL is an easy-to-use full functioned calculator whereas Oracle might be some advanced HP calculator that requires special training to learn how to use right... :-) > Personally I think the calculator/wires approach is better from an > engineering perspective, but it can be a handicap in the user experience > and checkbox categories --- ease of use is perhaps not our strong point. > Much of our open source value is being different, in both cost, > reliability, and configurability. I found this true of a lot of tools. I still remember when the mutt developers argued against putting IMAP in their solution because they thought there might be a better "IMAP component" client out there. Eventually, such arguments are dropped, as the practical sense on the matter says that tight integration is a requirement. I don't see how PostgreSQL has really failed in this regard. Maybe Oracle comes out-of-box with more features - but this doesn't make it necessarily a more "complete" solution - it just means it has more bells and whistles. A bicycle doesn't need a ticking card mounted through the spokes for it to be considered a "complete solution". :-) Somebody might one day want that "feature" - but it's extra - it's not core. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke<mark@mielke.cc>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: