* Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> [2002-09-03 10:17 +0800]:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories
> > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed
> > software then the latter seemed to win over.
> >
> > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like
> > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties',
> > etc.
>
> I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source
> database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and
> even postgres really) compete with that?
PostgreSQL code and build process is maintainable. Besides, I don't
think that PostgreSQL is no match for SAPdb, as PostgreSQL will have a
native win32 port, replication, schemas and prepared statements in the
forseeable future. What else is missing? Cross-database queries? I
suspect that at the current pace, PostgreSQL will match SAPdb's features
reasonably soon.
Btw. SAPdb has a win32 port, but still doesn't run on most Unixen (not
even on FreeBSD), which brings me back the the "maintainable code and
build process" point ;-)
> And what about Firebird?
You can get commercial support for it, too. Just as for PostgreSQL and
SAPdb.
-- Gerhard