Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Galen Boyer allegedly said,on my timestamp of 30/05/2004 5:24 AM:

> Well, the industry must have found a way to have it work out,
> because it is thriving.

Narh. Open source is thriving in large sites. That is not the same as free software. Don't confuse the two.

> Sorry, but what you said seem to be loud and clearly saying that
> open source doesn't work and is rubbish.

Not at all. Of course it works. And it is not rubbish. Free software however can be a load of rubbish... (note: I am NOT including Linux here)

> Excuse me. Enterprise solutions that involve open source
> software.

That is correct. However, I don't see a single one of them being adopted other isolated cases by very large companies. And I mean the ENTIRE solution. Not just one bit, like the OS, or the web server. The application itself. The contention from the OP was that applications (not OS or servers) must have ALL the source code of whatever they use available, as well as its own, in order to become cost-effective. That is rubbish. They most certainly do not have to. And there are remarkably few that can be classified as open source. Note that when forced to examples, EVERYONE including the OP uses Linux. I'm sorry, but Linux is NOT an application! It's an OS. There IS a difference.

> Well, this once again is where you are wrong. Many customers
> would rather have an option where unknown future solutions can be
> solved without having to depend on the company which coded the
> solution. How many times does an application get coded in-house
> and put into production?

Remarkably few times nowadays. Hence, there is no significant market for all this source code.

> Then, the client wants new
> functionality. Do they always call back the consultant that
> coded the app? No. They might do it themselves, or higher some
> other consultant company. The open source proposition is that
> all software can be that way.

And the market reality outside of very large organisations that can afford the development risks is that it is not cost-effective. They found that out years ago when they started buying canned apps rather than developing their own. Why do you think SAP and Peoplesoft and so many others got so large? Because their apps are good? yeah, right! Because they ARE cost-effective, compared to rolling (AND managing) your own or paying someone to do it for you.

Anyways I'm starting UAT tomorrow and gonna be busy as heck. See youse later, it's been an interesting yarn.

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