On 19 Mar 2003 at 9:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Guys,
>
> > You make an astute observation that I think should become a strategy of the
> > advocacy team. That is to portray MySQL as a "hobby" database, but Postgres
> > as a "production" database. I think this is a very easy stance to take,
> > since I've always thought that. Anyone caught arguing that MySQL is better
> > will show how much they don't know about Postgres or real databases.
>
> And why are we "competing" against MySQL, exactly?
>
> Look, the people who use MySQL aren't going to use PostgreSQL. They're
> looking for a fast, simple database with no DBA requirements, which IS NOT
> POSTGRESQL. Such databases have their niche just as we have ours.
I have a growing feeling that the basis of perception that postgresql is slow
stems from the arcane and age old defaults postgresql ships with. I know that
they will be bumped in the next release but that does not help much to heal the
mind share loss over the years..
Besides postgresql requires shared memory which is a system resource. I don't
know much about mysql but my guess would be they can get as much resource
runtime without intervention of root or kernel. That definitely plays to their
advantage when people run out of box installations..
> Our "competitors" are MS SQL, SQLAnywhere, Oracle, and DB2. Business-class
> databases. The tech press likes to focus on MySQL vs. PostgreSQL because
> they haven't caught up to the idea that an OSS database could compete with
> commmercial offerings. When *you* focus on MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, YOU ARE
> BUYING IN TO THEIR IGNORANCE, and helping the press compartmentalize Postgres
> as an alternative to MySQL.
Agreed. Druming our features is the way to go. Not slamming other *OR*
defending ourselves.
Bye
Shridhar
--
byob, v: Believing Your Own Bull