>should be Microsoft SQLServer and Oracle. It seems to me that it's
>PostgreSQL/MySQL vs those two. Why fight amongst ourselves?
>
>Now, if there is something truly lacking in MySQL, that completely
>different because this stuff ends up in the archives and people make
>decisions based off what they find there. However, it needs to be kept
>professional, don't you think?
I think it's mostly because of the differences between PostgreSQL and MySQL
in areas like transactions, reliability, scalability, etc., that make one
look like a child's toy and one look like a commercial product (I'll leave
it to the reader to figure out which is which :). Unfortunately, due to its
higher profile, if anyone looks on postgres and mysql as the open source
"alternatives", they're just going to apply what they've seen of MySQL to
both. That certainly doesn't help postgres feel any better. I, for one,
prefer to distance the two products as much as possible for that same
reason. Otherwise, it makes it harder to pitch it to my boss, you know :)
Rob Nelson
rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us