At 2:32 PM +0300 2000-04-02, Michael Widenius wrote:
>Hi!
>
>>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Wagner <mwagner@stripped> writes:
>
>Matt> Thimble Smith writes:
>>>
>>> <cut>
>>>
>>> Rrnmph! Now I'm in trouble.
>>>
>>> I was basing that on my rememberance of a posting here in this mailing
>>> list. I thought it was Monty who wrote it. But now I can't find it
>>> anywhere. And, what's more, I check the web site and behold! there is
>>> Oracle comparison data there (both in the benchmark and crash-me pages).
>>>
>>> So, unless I run into that posting that I was thinking about, please
>>> do NOT believe what I said above. I don't have any good evidence of
>>> it!
>
>Matt> Nor do I, however there *was* something going on around the end of
>Matt> last year (1999) with Oracle asking to have their results
>Matt> removed. Monty would have to comment on this however (as I am as foggy
>Matt> as Tim :).
>
>Oracle just asked us WHY we have a non approved benchmark on our web
>pages. They haven't tried to sue us about this yet :) On the other
>hand, one of our intentions with our current benchmarks is to show what
>kind of performance any user can get with a default database
>installation and for this the current results are accurate. As we
>don't have any Oracle license that can be revoked and because we don't
>think they are allowed to forbid users to do benchmarks on their
>previous 'free' Oracle personal edition here in Scandinavia we have
>decided to keep the results on our pages. We do however plan to extend
>the benchmarks so that one more clearly can see the cases where Oracle
>is strong.
>
>Regards,
>Monty
"non-approved"? What would it take to get an "approved" benchmark?
Give them complete veto control over it so that they could edit
results they didn't like, I suppose.
--
Paul DuBois, paul@stripped
