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. 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. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
