On Monday 17 October 2005 13:01, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 09:46, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Please don't make this assumption. PostgreSQL is *very* much on their
> > > radar, and probably represents the biggest long-term threat to their
> > > core database business at the moment. We got a hint of that during the
> > > .org bidding, but for now it is in Oracle's interest not to call
> > > attention to PostgreSQL. The last thing they want is publicity for the
> > > project. We may be a harder target to hurt than MySQL, but we are a
> > > target, make no mistake about it. I'm sure PostgreSQL is on the radar
> > > of Sybase, Microsoft, and IBM as well.
> >
> > And they probably read every word we write ;)
>
> I'd bet they read plenty, but don't necessarily understand a lot,
> judging by their pitiful fud campaign when Afilias proposed using
> postgresql as a database behind .org. They tried to say PostgreSQL
> didn't support transactions. So, while we may be on their screens, and
> I'm sure some marketeer there tries to keep up with some of the traffic
> here, the actual comprehension seems pretty low judging by their past
> statements.
>
> Actually, I kinda hope it stays that way.
>
Don't bet on it. If Afilias is 4 years smarter about postgresql, you can bet
Oracle is too. In fact my guess is that they started reading up as soon
as .org was awarded to a pg based company. I think before that they
probably figured that my$ql, being more popular, was roughly equal if not
better than postgresql, and often confused the two. If there smart enough to
be buying innobase these days, you can bet that by now they have this stuff
all straightened out.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL