Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0?
От | Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OFA63AF50F.FFDF6A52-ON05257093.0063A99A-05257093.0063F8DE@ftw.us.ray.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
In this thread, no one has mentioned their dual license, which I think of as more duplicitous than dual. Neither free as in freedom nor free as in beer, really. pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 10/07/2005 12:45:39 PM: > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > So, yeah, the above claim is just FUD. It'd be interesting to ask some > > hard questions about exactly how solid MySQL AB's finances are ... and > > how many other support options users will have if they go under. > > A possibly more likely and scary option for their users is that MySQL > would just get bought out. I'm sure support wouldn't cost much per CPU > per server per year, at least at first... > > IBM have previously bought Informix (who bought Illustra, RedBrick, > Cloudscape) and Oracle have previously bought DEC RDB, so both have > track record of successful competitor take-overs. None of those take- > overs has led to a product actually surviving. Oracle have spent time > running down Siebel, only to completely U-turn and buy them. Of course, > Sybase and CA might get in there first, both of whom also have > successful take-overs of RDBMS companies under their belts. > > Oracle's licence sales just flat-lined in their last quarter, share > price down 4%. Their strategy is clearly one of enterprise application > dominance now. > > But no, Mark, I'm not worried by the FUD. It just means there's nothing > real for them to throw at PostgreSQL. > > Best Regards, Simon Riggs > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: