Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > > > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL > > > > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories > > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed > > software then the latter seemed to win over. > > > > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like > > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties', > > etc. > > I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source > database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and > even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think > the nominations were put forward by a bunch of people who've only ever heard > of MySQL and PostgreSQL... > > (Not that I'd switch to SapDB ;) )
No question there is bias. 50% of the awards racket is just to generate traffic of people who want to see who you picked. Red Hat DB won for "Productivity Application" last year at LinuxWorld. I think they just applied for everything. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
