Re: Article in BuilderAU: Are open source
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Article in BuilderAU: Are open source |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1087581132.28062.11.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Article in BuilderAU: Are open source databases (Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: Article in BuilderAU: Are open source
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 04:33, Robert Bernier wrote: > I get the sense that the author is a bit ambivalent towards opensource > > > > Jussi.Mikkola@bonware.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I found this article. I was wondering, why they complain about the > > documentation? > > > > http://www.builderau.com.au/architect/0,39024564,39129549,00.htm Considering it has this piece of fuddish tripe in it: “Users sometimes wonder who they can sue if something goes wrong. It’s easy to find and sue Oracle, which is a commercial entity. But who do they sue if MYSQL hurts their business?” By this, (even as a quote from a source) it's pretty obvious this guy has no clue about commercial software guarantees. Every EULA from every major vendor has a clause about how you can't sue, and they're not responsible for your lost or damaged up data. The only guarantee you have whether or not pgsql is a good choice for you is your own testing, period. If you didn't test it (or any other database) and it screwed up your stuff, tough luck, commercial or open source. It ain't nobody's choice but yours. It's funny how Open Source provides better REAL support by way of things like these mailing lists, while PHBs want a service contract because they never trust the people working for them to be competent to solve their own issues. So, the commercial stuff costs more, provides generally poorer service, but the guy in charge of choosing the database wants a little soothing pillow talk from a vendor so you go with product X instead.
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: