[slowpoke]

Attacking the messenger is shallow. How about you look at the points - whether valid or not - he or she raises instead and try to refute them? It matters little if that person is well known or someone entirely new. I don't see how the relative anonymity of a person is in any way related to his or her credibility.

Besides, calling a position you don't agree with "trolling" with no further argumentation is 4chan level of discourse, and I know what I'm talking about when I say this. I will not take a side in this discussion because I'm not qualified to voice an opinion over things I do not understand well enough (databases), but I had to point this out.

[christkv]

it's still a valid point as there are no references to back up any off the claims in the post. he should at least have included links to issues in their jira or some way of replicating the problem he is experiencing.

as it stands now it's not fact based and could as much be opinion as there is no way to weight the merit of the claims against anything substantial :(

[slowpoke]

Now that's more of a valid argument.

I just dislike calling anyone who prefers to stay in relative anonymity (for whatever reason) or is simply new to a community "not credible", at least if it's only because of those attributes. It's a thinly veiled ad hominem.