Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Doug Hutcheson wrote:

> Proposition 1:
> I agree with that proposition.

Disagree. I can't think of ONE circumstance where that would be the case IF a commercial db is used. I can certainly think of a few if a freeware db is used...

> Proposition 2:
> I agree with that proposition.

1000% agreed.

> Proposition 3:
> I agree with that proposition.

Same as 1.

> Note that neither Quirk nor I claim that these propositions always apply to
> every situation, nor that there are not clear and obvious exceptions.

Of course.

> However, I must take issue with Noons,

of course.

> There are large companies in our industry who are famous for implementing
> backward-incompatibility in new versions of their software.

Name one and a concrete example in the database business. You are confusing M$ with database server vendors. There IS a difference...

> Further, most
> support is time limited: once the software has reached a certain age, the
> vendor demands that you upgrade (at your cost) if you want to continue to
> receive support and bug fixes.

So what? If you have not yet experienced a bug and you have not changed the application code, why the heck would you need support and/or bug fixes beyond the support period of the maker? The thing doesn't exactly "wear off", does it? If it works now, it will work in 10 years time.

> Clearly, that makes good commercial sense and
> nobody would dispute their right to drop suport for old products, but it
> does lock customers into an "upgrade or else" cost cycle.

NO it MOST definitely does NOT lock customers into ANY upgrade cycle! Customers GET locked into the upgrade cycle because they believe the rubbish put out by nongs like M$.

 > If a customer
> decides not to upgrade, the vendor has effectively broken the code for the
> customer as soon as the next bug or insecurity is encountered: no support
> means no fix.

And what makes you think all of a sudden a bug will be found after de-support that was never found in all the previous years the software was supported? Software is not mechanical, it doesn't wear off.

> The point here is that current commercial practice by many vendors forces
> clients into expensive upgrades which have no direct commercial benefit to
> the customer.

No way. What forces them to extensive upgrades is the misguided notion that something is magically obsolete as soon as the next model is out. A notion fostered of course by those same commercial makers. But there is no book that says you have to follow their "advice". Same argument as not buying a new TV every year.

> Quirk's propositions present a scenario under which customers
> have the freedom to choose what to upgrade and how much to spend, based on
> their own business imperatives and not those of a third party on which they
> depend.

What you are saying is the "mysterious bug" that would make the upgrade mandatory would show up without source code but magically wouldn't show up if the customer had "access to the source code"? Hmmm, I think not....

Anyway: how many "customers" do you know about that could care one iota about source code anyway? How many do you know about that even KNOW what a compiler is? Walk into a small business and try to convince them that having source code is better for them and see how far you get... 99.9999999% of them don't even know what you mean by the word "source" and couldn't care less if they did.

> After 25 years in the industry, I know of many organisations which are
> getting heartily sick of spending vast sums of money in knee-jerk upgrades
> (which usually involves staff retraining and other ancilliary expenses) at
> the whim of a vendor.

Me too, after 30 years. And guess what: the answer is simple. Do NOT upgrade, unless you absolutely have to. I know of many customers still running the SAME hardware and software they were running 10 years ago.

If it works and does the job, don't touch it. If it doesn't, then find someone who can fix it. If it's too old and no one stocks it anymore, then buy a new one. What's the problem with that? It's what the entire economy is based on...

 > When I am able to offer my customers an alternative to
> this revenue drain, I am happy to do so.

Here is the alternative: if it does the job, do NOT upgrade. Simple.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam