El mar, 04-05-2010 a las 04:27 -0500, [email protected] escribió: > I'd echo this sentiment. Having worked on a number of large corporate > Satellite installations, I can't think of a single client who wouldn't > jump at the chance of ditching the extra Oracle licenses involved.
Indeed... but many larger organizations won't even blink at this license. > Maintaining support for an Oracle back end may be a requirement, but > from my own experience, moving to PostgreSQL as the primary > development effort would not raise any eyebrows in corporate-land. It > would also help broaden the appeal of Spacewalk amongst the open > source development community as coders for other distros will likely > (IMO) view the Oracle dependency as a blocker to them investing their > time. Opening the path for other distros to develop Spacewalk as > their management tool can only be a good thing I reckon. I will be quite happy to see the database options expand, but I assert that many organizations standardize their database environments and build a wealth of support infrastructure around them. Having to implement a new database architecture to support Spacewalk/Satellite could be quite unpalatable. Unless I'm mistaken, reducing administrative overhead is one goal of the spacewalk/satellite projects. The addition of another database architecture to support would be counter-productive for some organizations. While I agree that opening doors for smaller organizations to use the products on PostgreSQL is desirable, I would not like to see this happen as the expense of the existing user base. -- Andy Speagle Systems & Storage Administrator UCATS - Wichita State University O: 316.978.3869 C: 316.617.2431
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
