Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Joel Garry wrote:

> See all the discussions and lawsuits about MS API's not being
> truthful, er, "documented correctly."

Enumerate the buyers of MS software that could care if the API is or is not truthful. I'll bet you'll fit them in the fingers of one hand.

>
> You mean Larry and Bill aren't investing heavily in the Far East?

:)))
I like it: e-e-e-vil....

>>code to "fix" anything.  The costs of hiring the right people to
>>make that code usable (and maintaining it in a usable form) are
>>astronomical compared to just getting a new release upgrade.

No it does not. It is a well known and documented fact that people skills are MUCH more expensive than any software. I won't even debate it.

> we still haven't caught up - and people try to push products that
> can't even join tables in one schema!

Aye! Shades of EJBs...

> So now we have laws against reverse-engineering and companies based on
> reverse-engineering to provide products and information that add value
> to the RDBMS's. Are we better off? I'd say no.

I'd say yes, judging by the number of companies that nowadays use computers and 20 years ago wouldn't even think of it, at whatever price point.

> And we can't say that attempting to do anything with linux source code
> is too expensive. There are obvious problems, sure. But a large
> vendor such as Oracle can certainly work with it, and has.

But Oracle is a software maker, not a typical end-user of made software, by any stretch of the imagination. Oracle using ANY product is NO endorsement of that product for anyone but another software maker. The vast minority.

> Is it a
> good thing that linux has grown at the expense of other unix rather
> than Windows? Jury's still out on that one. The most important thing
> that linux gives us is the ability to influence the direction of the
> OS more, um, directly.

Doubt it. Judging by the moronic level of argumentation I see from the "free software" brigade, I sincerely doubt they could be made to change any direction...

> Unworkable for end-user companies, perhaps, but they are not the only
> part of the industry.

No they most certainly are not. They are only 99.999999% of the entire industry. Good enough for me... ;)

> As Jim's post implicitly pointed out, there's
> need for things between mass-vendors and users.

Of course. That unfortunately is NOT "the market", although it IS without a shadow of a doubt "a market".

> make the business case of such things work long-term though. Just
> like Walmart coming through and wiping out mom-and-pop stores, Walmart
> removes variety and quality and good things are lost in the process.

And they bloody well have, haven't they?

> This is where social values must work with and override economics,
> since the demand is not properly informed.

Proponents of economic rationalism would now jump in and call you a commie...

:)

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