The only company that's ever made me actually happy to use Microsoft's competing product instead. Now if only this self imposed isolation will convince everyone else to ditch Oracle SQL so i can stop supporting it =P
Except there are still a lot of shared web hosts that don't offer PostgreSQL; they offer only Oracle MySQL. Good luck getting shared hosts to ditch MySQL.
Except there are still a lot of shared web hosts that don't offer PostgreSQL; they offer only Oracle MySQL.
While its true that there are lots of shared hosting providers that don't offer PostgreSQL, there are also lots that do offer PostgreSQL. So if you want PostgreSQL you have options.
While its true that there are lots of shared hosting providers that don't offer PostgreSQL, there are also lots that do offer PostgreSQL.
That's fine if you know you'll be installing a particular web application on your hosting plan from day one. But if you're adding an application to an existing hosting plan, you have to use what you have unless the contract with your hosting provider is due for renewal very soon.
That's fine if you know you'll be installing a particular web application on your hosting plan from day one. But if you're adding an application to an existing hosting plan, you have to use what you have unless the contract with your hosting provider is due for renewal very soon.
No, if you are adding an application to an existing hosting plan, you have to use what you have by definition, regardless of contract terms (because if you switch plans, then you aren't adding the application to the existing hosting plan.)
If you are adding an application to a business with has an existing shared hosting plan, which is more likely the right way to consider things, then you have several options, including: 1. Use something that works with the existing plan, 2. Host the new application separately from the existing applications, 3. Migrate the existing services to a new host which will also host the old one.
None of these are absolutely constrained by the existing contract, though #3 might have additional one-time transition costs due to the provisions of the contract.
My "unless the contract with your hosting provider is due for renewal very soon" referred to migration, your #3: transition costs become more bearable near the end of the contract. Your #2 is impossible due to the same origin policy if the services have to interact in certain ways. So this leaves application developers targeting site owners who are stuck in #1: "Use something that works with the existing plan". And in this market, where so many "existing plan[s]" lack PostgreSQL, that means adding support f
My "unless the contract with your hosting provider is due for renewal very soon" referred to migration, your #3: transition costs become more bearable near the end of the contract.
Right, but its not impossible, as you presented it originally, its an option with costs (just like choosing a less-suitable backed database is an option with costs), which have to be weighed against its benefits.
"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics."
- from "The Graduate"
Oracle: (Score:3)
Oracle on shared web hosting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While its true that there are lots of shared hosting providers that don't offer PostgreSQL, there are also lots that do offer PostgreSQL. So if you want PostgreSQL you have options.
Re: (Score:2)
While its true that there are lots of shared hosting providers that don't offer PostgreSQL, there are also lots that do offer PostgreSQL.
That's fine if you know you'll be installing a particular web application on your hosting plan from day one. But if you're adding an application to an existing hosting plan, you have to use what you have unless the contract with your hosting provider is due for renewal very soon.
Re:Oracle on shared web hosting (Score:2)
No, if you are adding an application to an existing hosting plan, you have to use what you have by definition, regardless of contract terms (because if you switch plans, then you aren't adding the application to the existing hosting plan.)
If you are adding an application to a business with has an existing shared hosting plan, which is more likely the right way to consider things, then you have several options, including:
1. Use something that works with the existing plan,
2. Host the new application separately from the existing applications,
3. Migrate the existing services to a new host which will also host the old one.
None of these are absolutely constrained by the existing contract, though #3 might have additional one-time transition costs due to the provisions of the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but its not impossible, as you presented it originally, its an option with costs (just like choosing a less-suitable backed database is an option with costs), which have to be weighed against its benefits.