[ale] Losing PHP Jobs in Atlanta? Growing ASP.NET?

[Jeff Hubbs]

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 17:03, Jonathan Rickman wrote:
>Nine years ago you would have been branded a fool for even suggesting
that
> MySQL or PostgreSQL were even in the same category with Oracle. Even today,
> I would consider it naive to put MySQL in the same category. PostgreSQL is
> close to Oracle now on mid size systems but still isn't quite there when the
> database exceeds 2TB. Of course, once you factor in commercial support costs
> for PostgreSQL you're right back in Oracle land in terms of pricing. Oracle
> provides support at a level that nobody comes close to...with the possible
> exception of Sun (IMHO). So even with the advancement of PostgreSQL
> technically and the slight cost savings, it is still not a slam dunk
> decision. 
> 
> The fact that someone chooses something other than OSS for a business need
> does automatically not make them stupid, despite what the OSS zealot
> handbook says. 

But did he or anyone else determine if the OSS solution (let's say
PostgreSQL for sake of argument) Just Worked for their business need? 
And I'm not so sure about your cost parity claim; when I worked for a
company that was putting a client on Oracle, the Oracle license alone
was going to be tens of thousands of dollars.  In any case, I doubt that
anyone ran the numbers and did a genuine comparison.

With a statement like "Even though [Linux] has moved into the realm of a
production-level system and may become a competitor to Microsoft," this
fellow is clearly a little late to the cluetrain.  He doesn't "get"
OSS.  People who "get" OSS don't really perceive Microsoft and Linux as
having a "competition" with each other; if they're anything like me,
they find the idea of having a server operating system that doesn't have
a proper administrative toolset like having one foot nailed to the floor
(it's great if you only want to walk in a circle).

- Jeff