-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is
> Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it
> just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for
> the latter; i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>
> All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with
> MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct),
> have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against
> ancient vers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
PFC wrote:
>
>> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
>> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where
>> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many,
>> many thousands (if not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing?
>
> As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this
> type of anti-comm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's even harder, as Oracle disallows publishing benchmark figures in
their license. As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing?
Andreas
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/18/07, David Tokmatchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scalability ? Performance
