On Tue, 2006-14-03 at 07:45 -0500, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
> One doesn't 'install' oracle. That implies you have control of the
> situation. One attempts to convince it to condescend to install itself onto
> your machine.
>
> Of course, this is like convincing my 3 year old to go to bed on time. Such
> powers of persuasion are not common.
>
> On 3/13/06 5:41 PM, "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 15:26, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 15:16, Tony Caduto wrote:
> >>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>>> Overall, PostgreSQL
> >>>> has been faster than the commercial product from which we converted.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kevin,
> >>> Are you allowed to say what commercial product you converted from?
> >>
> >> And whether he can or not, this would make a GREAT case study for the
> >> advocacy folks.
> >
> > Yeah, anyone who says installing postgresql is hard should have to
> > install Oracle first. Or compile MySQL from source. :)
> >
I'll agree with that, we had a tech who tried for a week to install
Oracle, only having to resort to buying third party books, to
figure out how to configure it. Managing it, is another scary task
when that guy left, I soon discovered the jumble of tools required
to administer it. We stopped supporting Oracle when our last
customer using it stopped using it.
I use PostgreSQL for most projects but have been supporting MySQL
for customers who request it, and usually build any new libraries
to be able to support either transparently, just by changing the
driver and user credentials in the config file. The hard part is
usually getting the MySQL to do what I expect, and what PostgreSQL
does by default.