Josh Berkus wrote:
>What's really peculiar about this is that I participated in an Aberdeen
study
>specifically on PostgreSQL as a replacement for Oracle. So the Aberdeen
>folks have *extensive* information about PostgreSQL, its features, and its
>development process. But apparently the researchers don't share
>information.
I would not put a lot of weight on this report.
Most Aberdeen "white papers" are specific for-hire products, typically
costing in the $10-$20k+ range. They are far from objective: the vendor
gets to read the draft, review, and comment. In this case, I'm sure
Sleepycat was avoiding saying anything bad about MySQL, since they have a
relationship.
This is in sharp contrast to material from outfits like Forrester and
Gartner, which are more objective -- to the extent they can be with vendors
as paying customers. Companies don't see material until after it's been
published, and (most) analysts pride themselves on being objective. BUT,
analysts do get most of their info from company pitches: so, if company A
presents, but company B isn't there to balance things out, there will be a
bias.
-andy