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
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
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
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
