|
Maybe, it has absolutely nothing to do
with performance or stability. Maybe, it has something with ‘ease of implementation’,
‘ease of use’, ‘availability of commercial support’,
and which database vendors ultimately decide to support in their products. Obviously,
Microsoft has a lot of vendors pushing SQL server integration with their
products. Oracle has pretty good penetration with vendors also. Now if you were
a vendor and you going to integrate with open source database – Would you
choose MySQL, which is available under GPL with the possibility commercial
licensing AND has a real enterprise class support structure behind it, or are
you going to run with PostgreSQL (bow wow) distributed under a BSD license with
some mom and pop support shops and some mailing lists? Well, I would say that
vendors and enterprise customers are speaking loud and clear when they are
choosing MySQL 4 to 1 over PostgreSQL. Hey, it’s your choice. Do you want
to eat American Grade A American beef or that strange meat flavored tofu? As
long as it meets your needs, choose whatever you have the ability to handle. From: Robert Goodyear
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mar
15, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Giudice, Salvatore wrote: Sticks and stone still break my bones, but PostgreSQL is still a
dog. Market share: According to CD Times magazine dated July 1, 2004 Top Deployed Databases poll shows following databases in use:
SQL Server with 78%, Oracle - 55%, MySQL - 33% and PostgreSQL -
8%. Devil's
advocate here: what does deployment quantity have to do with stability,
performance or otherwise? I could
start a pretty big flame war if I tried to compare Windows 95 with MacOS X by
deployment stats instead of stability. |
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
