| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?
Daniel Morgan wrote:
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>>> >>> That may be true of 'your' customers. But not one of mine would find >>> that acceptable. >> >> >> Daniel. Before you type, why don't you read? And why don't you just >> stop to pause a little and think who comes to this group?
That the people who come here are a wide and varied bunch, and the fact that *your* customers need to run 24x7x365 is not sufficient justification for rubbishing the O/S and database they have decided to use.
> I think the people that come here, and please note this is going to
> two different groups,
I am quite well aware of the fact.
> are interested in multiple opinions ... and in
> the end make up their own minds based on their situation.
Rubbishing one of the most common O/Ses, and one of the top three RDBMSs, does not constitute an 'opinion'. It is, however, something you do a lot of. Not on any technical basis, because that might be a discussion worth having, but because "my customers wouldn't find that acceptable".
>> That's just fine and dandy, and FOR THAT REASON, you wouldn't >> recommend they use Windows. Perfectly understandable, perfectly >> reasonable. A *reasoned* business decision.
More's the pity then, because they are reasonable words. Although it helps not to snip the context in which they were said, and if you are going to snip (which is actually most unlike you) to indicate that you have done so.
> There are times when Windows
> is the appropriate solution. But that said ... one makes that decision
> based on understanding the reality of the impact it will have on every
> aspect of the database and its operations.
>
> The thread I was responding two,
> if you review it, will clearly show
> that the first posting related to a list that seemed to sum up
> decision making as based on performance and extras. I pointed out
> that there were more important considerations such as security,
> stability, and scalability.
No, Daniel. That is called "re-writing history". You didn't make reasoned comments about those three things, but said Windows was insecure, needed patches all the time and so on. What I have called "rubbishing Windows". I was merely trying to point out that a reasoned business decision can be made for running on Windows because security and stability and scalability can be managed in a way that will keep the vast majority of customers happy.
Rather than graciously accept that a reasoned business decision might actually favour Windows and SQL Server from time to time, you simply announced "well, that wouldn't suit my customers".
My point was then: so effing what? Or put another way, your experience, with your customers, doesn't (obviously) qualify you to comment on the experience and needs of the vast majority of O/S and RDBMS users on the face of this planet.
> That you have latched onto a single sentence about Windows in which I
> made reference to its specific issues related to stability is your
> decision and a segue from the point I was trying to make.
No, not a single sentence. An attitude that speaks volumes.
>
>> That is all.
Why? Do you dislike having to actually justify the sweeping statements you are occasionally prone to making?
Humility, Daniel, consists in part in understanding that your particular experiences are not necessarily indicative of the experiences of others. You could try it sometime.
HJR Received on Sun May 16 2004 - 14:38:32 CDT
 |
 |