Mark Mielke wrote: > > Personally I think the calculator/wires approach is better from an > > engineering perspective, but it can be a handicap in the user experience > > and checkbox categories --- ease of use is perhaps not our strong point. > > Much of our open source value is being different, in both cost, > > reliability, and configurability. > > I found this true of a lot of tools. I still remember when the mutt > developers argued against putting IMAP in their solution because they > thought there might be a better "IMAP component" client out there. > Eventually, such arguments are dropped, as the practical sense on the > matter says that tight integration is a requirement. > > I don't see how PostgreSQL has really failed in this regard. Maybe > Oracle comes out-of-box with more features - but this doesn't make it > necessarily a more "complete" solution - it just means it has more bells > and whistles. A bicycle doesn't need a ticking card mounted through the > spokes for it to be considered a "complete solution". :-) Somebody might > one day want that "feature" - but it's extra - it's not core.
Agreed. Many commercial database solutions start to look like Frankenstein with all the bolted-on components. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
