Swaminathan Saikumar wrote:
> http://searchyourwebhost.com/web-hos...ting-using-sql
>
> Check out the link. I am starting out on a new personal project & had
> zeroed in on PostGreSql with Mono-ASP.NET as ideal for my needs,
> mainly owing to a PostGreSql whitepaper.
> Now, I chanced upon the article above. I've pasted the cons as
> mentioned in the article, and would like the community feedback on it,
> especially with regards to the "inferior Data Storage mechanism".
>
> The cons of PostgreSql Hosting
> * Performance considerations: Inserts and Updates into the PostgreSql
> database is much slower compared to MySql. PostgreSql hosting thus
> might slow down the display of the web page online.
> * BSD license issues: Since PostgreSql comes under the Berkeley
> license scheme, this is again considered to be too open.
> * Availability of inferior Data Storage mechanism: PostgreSql uses
> Postgres storage system, which is not considered to be transaction sae
> during PostgreSql hosting.
> * Its not far-flung: While MySql hosting and MSSql hosting have deeply
> penetrated into the market, PostgreSql hosting still remains to be
> passive in the database hosting market.
> * Non-availability of required assistance for PostgreSql hosting:
> Assistance is being provided via mailing lists. However there is no
> guarantee that the issue faced during PostgreSql hosting would be
> resolved.
>
Those "cons" are seriously out of date.
They apply to "very" old versions of PostgreSQL and even that is
stretching it.

The part about the BSD license is bogus. A BSD license is the most
desirable of any Open Source license and gives you the right to use
PostgreSQL in your commercial apps without worry.

The part about inferior Data Storage mechanism is also flat out wrong.
PostgreSQL uses a MVC system same as Oracle and it also has transaction
logs,PITR etc.

Inserts and updates will be slightly slower than a Non MVC system, but
the human eye would not detect any difference in a web page displaying,
we are talking about miliseconds. Who does massive amounts of inserts
and updates from a web page anyway? I have CMS such as Drupal running
on both PostgreSQL and MySQL and I can't tell the difference in the
speed the pages render.

The availability of assistance is also bogus as there are many ways to
get support if you need it including commercial support companies and
Enterprise DB, The mailing list is also very active and effective.

The only part that has any truth to it is the far flung part, and MySQL
is king there, it even dwarfs M$ SQL server. M$ SQL server is severely
limited for hosting as well since it ONLY runs on windows and most
hosting providers run some form of Unix where M$ cannot play at all.

So in conclusion I would not pay attention to this article, it was
written by someone who really does not know what they are talking about.


Later,

Tony Caduto
AM Software Design
Home of Lightning Admin for PostgreSQL and MySQL


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org/

On 01/02/2008, Tony Caduto <tony_caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com> wrote:
> The part about the BSD license is bogus. A BSD license is the most
> desirable of any Open Source license and gives you the right to use
> PostgreSQL in your commercial apps without worry.
While I'm a big fan of the BSD license (for varied reasons) I think that
OpenSource hardliners like RMS would argue that the BSD license is *NOT*
in the true spirit of OpenSource *BECAUSE* of what you list as a bonus
of it ... the locking down of benefits reaped from OpenSource not getting
back into the stream.


Cheers,
Andrej


--
Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise.

http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

"Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <andrej.groups@gmail.com> writes:
> On 01/02/2008, Tony Caduto <tony_caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com> wrote:
>> The part about the BSD license is bogus. A BSD license is the most
>> desirable of any Open Source license and gives you the right to use
>> PostgreSQL in your commercial apps without worry.

> While I'm a big fan of the BSD license (for varied reasons) I think that
> OpenSource hardliners like RMS would argue that the BSD license is *NOT*
> in the true spirit of OpenSource *BECAUSE* of what you list as a bonus
> of it ... the locking down of benefits reaped from OpenSource not getting
> back into the stream.

The quoted article knocked *both* GPL and BSD as being "too open". Too
open for whom, he didn't say. The rest of the article is at about the
same quality level :-( I have seldom seen such a sterling example of
cluelessness combined with FUD-spouting.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

On 31 Jan, 22:04, andrej.gro...@gmail.com ("Andrej Ricnik-Bay") wrote:
>
> While I'm a big fan of the BSD license (for varied reasons) I think that
> OpenSource hardliners like RMS would argue that the BSD license is *NOT*
> in the true spirit of OpenSource *BECAUSE* of what you list as a bonus
> of it ... the locking down of benefits reaped from OpenSource not getting
> back into the stream.

RMS, or rather the FSF, regard the modern BSD licence as Free
Software:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/#ModifiedBSD

Of course it isn't a copyleft licence, so the point about people
making proprietary changes (perhaps what the article meant about "too
open") still stands, and the FSF naturally recommend their own
licences because of this and other reasons. However, since the licence
is GPL-compatible, anyone who wanted to could quite easily distribute
the software with their modifications under the GPL.

It's important to note that the FSF don't use the term "open source",
and any ambiguity in the article could have been remedied by using
well-understood terms like "copyleft", "permissive", and so on.

Paul

andrej.groups@gmail.com ("Andrej Ricnik-Bay") writes:
> On 01/02/2008, Tony Caduto <tony_caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com> wrote:
>> The part about the BSD license is bogus. A BSD license is the most
>> desirable of any Open Source license and gives you the right to use
>> PostgreSQL in your commercial apps without worry.

> While I'm a big fan of the BSD license (for varied reasons) I think that
> OpenSource hardliners like RMS would argue that the BSD license is *NOT*
> in the true spirit of OpenSource *BECAUSE* of what you list as a bonus
> of it ... the locking down of benefits reaped from OpenSource not getting
> back into the stream.

RMS wouldn't argue that, because he is uninterested in "OpenSource."
That's a term created/popularized by Eric Raymond, who is no friend of
RMS.

RMS is interested in "free software," and considers various
"BSD-related" licenses to be reasonable choices for free software.

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>

He'd prefer that people use the GPL, but I don't think there's
anything overly "hard line" about the notion of the author of a
license preferring it to others. It would seem mighty odd if he said
something like "I wrote the GPL, but think you should use the <Foo
License> instead."
--
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxxian.html
Jumping off a cliff doesn't kill you! It's only when you hit the
ground...