-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/30/07 14:50, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Mark Walker wrote:
>
[snip]
> At last year's at O'Reilly's OSCON here in Portland I had this discussion
> with the booth babes sales droids from Sugar-CRM. They said that they heard
> numerous requests for postgres support but the decision-makers in the
> company were not interested in accommodating that segment of the market. So
> this is not an isolated instance.
>
> At the risk of going off the topic (but I won't respond on the list to
> any
> such posts), this attitude does not surprise me. It continues to disappoint
> me, but I've seen too many poorly managed companies to be surprised any
> longer. Across many industries I wonder why some companies manage to have
> survived as long as they have.
The company might not have the resources to maintain 2 backends, or
modify the whole system so that it is backend neutral. Maybe they
use lots of MySQL-specific features that would make re-engineering
it an arduous/imposible/expensive task, and thus not feasible.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFv7KrS9HxQb37XmcRAkamAJ0Q+mJndlO0UMQ4KilwBtoN6c6CaACfXahj
uSE+flB2ql4C0rba5qTGJCE=
=+EAM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----