Re: open source PostgreSQL not supportable? (Was: Challenging SQL Query Problem. Can you solve it?)
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:08:59 +0100
Message-ID: <43acbb4d$0$11079$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> So sorry to tip you off your high horse, but there appears to be quite
> a bit of commercial grade support for PostgreSQL. And best of all, if
> one company isn't satisfactory, there's enough competition to switch to
> another while not having to switch databases. Since the source is open,
> they all can develop custom extentions just for my needs and as such
> that eliminates a single point of faillure, to name one advantage.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support
>
> In addition, I --claiming to have a small bit of clue-- think it is an
> advantage to have fairly open channels to the actual developers. Even
> if using them requires me to be somewhat civilized in my communication
> lest they ignore me for being obnoxious or something to that effect.
> Failing that, there is the above mentioned choice of companies that will
> take my money and listen to me, regarless of obnoxiousness, merit of the
> question, hangovers, and christmas dinners.
>
> [snip lots of potshots]
>
>
>
> I can't say I'm impressed by your argument. I firmly believe in using
> the right tool for the job, whatever the tool may be. I also believe
> that my strengths are not compatible with the poor excuse for OS
> that slows down the majority of desktops in the world at the time of
> this writing. So my specialism isn't to run the mainstream, but if
> anything that makes the skillset I do have harder to find and thus worth
> more. The same with running databases. There is a market for running
> PostgreSQL, even if it is not very visible.
>
> To elaborate on the last point: These kinds of systems are used most
> often by shops where the techs are left free to choose their own tools,
> instead of being forced to use the choice of their salescritter-wooed-
> managers. As such, they tend to be less specific in their job
> specifications. So them don't scream big expensive brand names, but
> the flipside is a happier workforce with at least as much chances of
> creating well-run shops. And with less of the licensing overhead, per
> cpu or otherwise. Daring to do this might or might not be suitable for
> fortune-500 or ``blame the vendor''-policied litigous companies. But
> there's few of those. There arequite enough of smaller shops where
> PostgreSQL may be very suitable indeed, noted by an apparent market
> allowing a fair number of commercial support companies to exist.
>
>
> What you choose is up to you, but that you clearly and firmly made your
> choice does not imply your choice necessarily applies to all the world.
> You failed to recognize that, and with that, you lost the argument.
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:08:59 +0100
Message-ID: <43acbb4d$0$11079$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
jpd schreef:
[snip]
> On 2005-12-23, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote:
>
>>Karen Hill wrote: >> >>>>>Not unless you use PostgreSQL. >>>> >>>>You mean not if they don't want support.[snip]
>>A couple of developers answering their email if they aren't at mom's >>for Christmas dinner is not 7x24 support but you are welcome to your >>concept.
>
> So sorry to tip you off your high horse, but there appears to be quite
> a bit of commercial grade support for PostgreSQL. And best of all, if
> one company isn't satisfactory, there's enough competition to switch to
> another while not having to switch databases. Since the source is open,
> they all can develop custom extentions just for my needs and as such
> that eliminates a single point of faillure, to name one advantage.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support
>
> In addition, I --claiming to have a small bit of clue-- think it is an
> advantage to have fairly open channels to the actual developers. Even
> if using them requires me to be somewhat civilized in my communication
> lest they ignore me for being obnoxious or something to that effect.
> Failing that, there is the above mentioned choice of companies that will
> take my money and listen to me, regarless of obnoxiousness, merit of the
> question, hangovers, and christmas dinners.
>
> [snip lots of potshots]
>
>>Certainly my impression looking at the number of jobs at dice.com >>and monster.com wanting that skill set.
>
>
> I can't say I'm impressed by your argument. I firmly believe in using
> the right tool for the job, whatever the tool may be. I also believe
> that my strengths are not compatible with the poor excuse for OS
> that slows down the majority of desktops in the world at the time of
> this writing. So my specialism isn't to run the mainstream, but if
> anything that makes the skillset I do have harder to find and thus worth
> more. The same with running databases. There is a market for running
> PostgreSQL, even if it is not very visible.
>
> To elaborate on the last point: These kinds of systems are used most
> often by shops where the techs are left free to choose their own tools,
> instead of being forced to use the choice of their salescritter-wooed-
> managers. As such, they tend to be less specific in their job
> specifications. So them don't scream big expensive brand names, but
> the flipside is a happier workforce with at least as much chances of
> creating well-run shops. And with less of the licensing overhead, per
> cpu or otherwise. Daring to do this might or might not be suitable for
> fortune-500 or ``blame the vendor''-policied litigous companies. But
> there's few of those. There arequite enough of smaller shops where
> PostgreSQL may be very suitable indeed, noted by an apparent market
> allowing a fair number of commercial support companies to exist.
>
>
> What you choose is up to you, but that you clearly and firmly made your
> choice does not imply your choice necessarily applies to all the world.
> You failed to recognize that, and with that, you lost the argument.
Welcome to cdt :-) Received on Sat Dec 24 2005 - 04:08:59 CET