Also seems to be a bit of hubris to claim a SQL IDE "works with your database" when SQL Server and Oracle, two of the database products with the largest market share, are not supported (yet?)
Alright so first off, for 90% of SQL Server's existence, Microsoft was openly open-source-hostile, so give me a fucking break with this. Microsoft used to be way worse than even Apple about keeping everything in their ecosystem- at least Apple is built on BSD underpinnings and was therefore also always compatible with POSIX stuff.
Oracle... last I checked on that monstrosity it had about 20 different clients all written at different times for different use cases over the long course of Oracle's history. So, which of these 20 different clients should one write a TUI for?
No we won't :)
Fwiw Microsoft SQL server is available as a Linux Docker build:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/quickstart-insta...
Oracle is available as a container and vm:
https://container-registry.oracle.com/ords/f?p=113:4:1173021...
I’m pretty pumped to try this seeing BigQuery is supported.
Agree on the first point, but is 'market share' - a metric comparing commercial sales revenue which by definition excludes open source software, really that relevant when critiquing a tagline for a FOSS tool implicitly targeting FOSS databases at a time when FOSS dominates?
If this wasn't an MIT licensed project without a single hint of a commercial offering I'd get it, but come on.
- stumble across the tool
- read that it "works with their database"
- hopefully read the actual list of supported databases
- become disappointed to learn that it does not in fact work with their database
In the case that hopes are not met, the user actually downloads the application and discovers the hard way that it does not work with their database.
So market share does seem relevant to the frequency of disappointment though. Is it going to be a frequent enough occurrence to be worth spending any time doing anything about? I don't know.