Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] Worth a read? And how do we react to this perception? |
---|---|
Author | Svein Erling Tysvaer |
Post date | 2006-06-29T09:39:22Z |
Paul Beach wrote:
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,37135,00.html
Here's an excerpt:
The result: Ingres, MySQL, and PostgreSQL are the Leaders, while Derby,
Firebird, and Oracle are Strong Performers. Ingres, Oracle, and
PostgreSQL offer strong support for transactional processing, while
Oracle and MySQL offer strong support for embedded database platforms.
Why would anyone want to pay 2000 USD for access to a report of 14
pages, when even the summary contains this kind of "erroneous
information"? Or am I wrong, I only know Firebird, so please tell me if
Ingres, Oracle and PostgreSQL has better transactional processing than
Firebird.
Set
> As with any Analyst report, the results tend to be utter garbage.I was even more shocked by this report by the same guy:
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,37135,00.html
Here's an excerpt:
The result: Ingres, MySQL, and PostgreSQL are the Leaders, while Derby,
Firebird, and Oracle are Strong Performers. Ingres, Oracle, and
PostgreSQL offer strong support for transactional processing, while
Oracle and MySQL offer strong support for embedded database platforms.
Why would anyone want to pay 2000 USD for access to a report of 14
pages, when even the summary contains this kind of "erroneous
information"? Or am I wrong, I only know Firebird, so please tell me if
Ingres, Oracle and PostgreSQL has better transactional processing than
Firebird.
Set