Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Daniel Morgan wrote:

> I don't recall ever disagreeing with what you just said.

I quoted you the 5 lines where you did that. And also the "not one of my customers would find that acceptable" statement.

As I've written to you elsewhere, "Not one would find it acceptable" could have been written as "Yes, many will find it acceptable, though the particular large corporations I am familiar with wouldn't".

Emphasis, nuance, subtelty and humility.

>If you think
> I did it was a misunderstanding. Keep in mind ... I use Windows daily.
> So do many of my smaller customers. I can't imagine what leap took you
> to the conclusions you did.
>
>> It's the "it's not, period" school of thought I find so immensely
>> unprofessional.
>
>
> I didn't enroll in that school and am totally perplexed by how you
> came to the erroneous conclusion I did.

5 lines quoted earlier, and your tone.

>> And that's a far more intelligent approach, don't you think, than
>> simply to dismiss.
>
>
> I don't recall ever doing that and can't imagine how you came to the
> conclusion I did.

Repeating something ad nauseam is not a particularly meaningful response, I would suggest.

>> I've told you before, but there's no adrenaline pumping here.
>
>
> Then please explain the 'effing' and other angst filled comments?

The explanation comes from the context. If you read it in context, the 'effing' performed precisely the function it was supposed to: indicate a dismissive reponse to your statement that a proposition I'd made wouldn't apply to your customers, when the whole point I was getting you to try and accept that what applies to your customers, and what you've experienced in your career, may not be typical or representative.

In plain words, whether fact X applies to your customers or not was irrelevant to the matter at hand. Where I come from, when something is irrelevant, one tends to say 'So f***ing what?'. It is therefore a phrase which is not angst-filled or adrenaline-fuelled.

[snip]

>> All I ask is that you back off a little and acknowledge the facts of
>> the world as they actually are, where hundreds of thousands of
>> databases run on SQL Server, on Windows (obviously), and their owners
>> and users don't find that an appalling state of affairs. Or, in your
>> words, a "limitation".
>
>
> A acknowledge to you, and to the entire universe that there is a place
> where Windows and SQL Server are appropriate solutions to business
> problems. Ok. Happy? I don't recall ever saying anything else.
>Taking
> something into consideration does not mean automatic rejection.

It shouldn't be like extracting blood from a stone, Daniel. That it has been does not make me happy in the least. Although it has to be said as well that my happiness has got nothing to do with the matter.

>> I'm not defending anything, Daniel. I have no interest in defending
>> either Windows or SQL Server, because whether I am for them or against
>> them, they'll still be there tomorrow (which has been largely my point
>> throughout).
>
>
> Then why didn't you just say it? And we could have ended this thread
> days ago.

I did, repeatedly. Read the thread again. The issue has always been trying to get you to look beyond *your* experience and *your* customers as though they were somehow definitive, and to acknowledge other experiences as perfectly valid. Not grudgingly valid. But 100% valid for their needs and circumstances.

Now you say that you never implied they were invalid. I would suggest that your phrase and tone has done precisely that. If that's a matter of interpretation and disagreement, I have no problem with that. So long as you realise that your tone, and nuance, have indeed been misinterpreted (and not just by me).

And whilst it is true that we can all be misinterpreted at times, some posters here seem more prone to it than others.

>> What I am doing is criticising what I consider to be your
>> unprofessionalism or arrogance, call it what you will, in "rubbishing"
>> a platform as you have done in this thread.
>
>
> Taking a weakness into consideration is not rubbishing. I can't recall
> driving my car to the store without taking into consideration its
> weaknesses.

Tone and nuance, Daniel.

> I am hoping for a glimpse of
>
>> humility or reason along the lines of 'Windows/SQL Server is a
>> platform which many businesses will find secure, stable and scalable
>> enough for their needs'.
>
>
> And there is a difference between your use of "enough" and my statement
> that these things need to be considered? I thought we spoke the same
> language: Apparently not.

Your language, in this thread, has been littered with words like "weakness" and "limitation" in a context where you have grandly announced that "not one of my customers would find it acceptable".

One doesn't need to have a Masters in English to be able to draw an obvious inference from all of that lot.

And again, if that inference should not have been drawn, then so be it. But one questions the wisdom of providing the material that lets it be so drawn in the first place.

[snip]

> All DBAs that don't agree with you on each and every point you have
> raised, raise, or will raise at some indeterminate point in the future
> are flaming morons. Does that make you feel better?

No, Daniel, because now you're just being silly.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you not to rubbish the many thousands of Windows/SQL Server users who don't agree with you.

> Last time I checked ... everything ever posted to the usenet was
> written as a personal opinion by its author and interpreted as personal
> opinion by its readers. When did that change?

As I say, you're just getting silly now.

We *know* your comments about Windows and SQL Server were just personal opinion. We know that, because tens of thousands of important databases run very successfully on that platform and don't find it a 'limitation' or a 'weakness'.

But I give up. You clearly don't want this to continue, for perfectly understandable reasons; and no-one else seems bothered by your comments anyway. So that's fine.

HJR Received on Mon May 17 2004 - 03:34:10 CDT