Re: open source PostgreSQL not supportable?

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:40:04 -0800
Message-ID: <1137022803.415988@jetspin.drizzle.com>

Bruce Lewis wrote:
> DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> writes:
>
>

>>But lets put a bit of common sense into this discussion. What auditor is
>>going to risk government intervention in their life by signing off on a
>>financial statement from which they have no guarantee that the numbers
>>are real?

>
>
> Every auditor.
>
> Every single one.
>
> There is never a guarantee that the numbers are real. The best you can
> do is to document who it is that you're trusting and the procedures they
> appeared to follow. Is it possible for an auditor to say that a DBA or
> system admin cannot be a trusted party, and a closed-source database
> vendor must be trusted instead? Yes, it is possible. Has anyone
> actually gotten that from an auditor? Not to anyone's knowledge in this
> discussion, including you.
>
> From what everyone here has said, including you, there is no reason to
> think one cannot comply with Sarbanes-Oxley while using PostgreSQL.

In PostgreSQL you have not one 1/10 the capabilities built into the top commercial products. Your statement is wholly without merit. Last time I looked SAP, PeopleSoft, eBusiness Suite, Siebel, JD Edwards, Baan, etc. ... not one ran on PostgreSQL. And you know there might just be a reason.

But I guess you can look on the bright side of things. It is worth precisely what you paid for it so you can't feel cheated.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Wed Jan 11 2006 - 17:40:04 CST