Can we please trim this down to just advocacy?
On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing?
As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer th
I don't want to add gas to the flamewar, but I gotta ask. What is in
the the 90 to 95% referred to in this email.
Carol
On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:38:32PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I've picked -advocacy.
Actually, I _had_ picked advocacy, but had an itchy trigger finger.
Apologies, all.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:16:56PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> pgsql-advocacy... your thoughts?
I've picked -advocacy.
>
> I think the Oracle discussion is over, David T. just needs URL references
> IMHO.
I don't think we can speak about Oracle; if we were licenced, we'd be
violating it, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Certainly, but can one expect to get a realistic answer to an, "is
> Oracle fearing something" question on he PostgreSQL list? Or was it
> just a backhanded attempt at pushing the topic again? My vote is for
> the latter; i
On 6/18/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted.
Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want
to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could
you at least limit it to one list?
Ye
All,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:50:22PM +0200, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
[something]
It would appear that this was the flame-fest that was predicted.
Particularly as this has been copied to five lists. If you all want
to have an argument about what Oracle should or should not do, could
you at le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>
> All of us have noticed the anti-MySQL bashing based on problems with
> MySQL 3.23... Berkus and others (including yourself, if I am correct),
> have corrected people on not making invalid comparisons against
> ancient vers
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah funny how you didn't do that ;) (of course neither did I).
I agree, an oops on my part :)
It is amazing how completely misguided you are in this response. I
haven't said anything closed minded. I only responded to your rather
antagon
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database
arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional
RTFM-l
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Well, I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
PFC wrote:
>
>> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
>> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where
>> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many,
>> many thousands (if not
On 6/18/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Depends? How many times are you going to antagonize the people that ask?
As many times as necessary. Funny how the anti-proprietary-database
arguments can continue forever and no one brings up the traditional
RTFM-like response of, "hey, t
PFC wrote:
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where
people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many,
many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Oracle also fear
2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a
database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where people
would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, many
thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
Oracle also fears benchmarks
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On 6/18/07, Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a cynic, I might ask, what Oracle is fearing?
As a realist, I might ask, how many times do we have to answer this
type of anti-commercial-database flamewar-starting question?
Depends? How many times are you goi
16 matches
Mail list logo
