>What I am saying is that if MySQL wasn't robust then those companies simply wouldn't be using it. That conclusion does not follow from the premises: that some

>What I am saying is that if MySQL wasn't robust then those companies simply wouldn't be using it. That conclusion does not follow from the premises: that some well known large companies use a technology in no way implies that it is robust. You are assuming that large, well known companies always intrinsically select for high robustness in their tools, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, there are many well known public cases of the opposite. It could be (for example) that large companies simply have the spare organizational capacity to deal with a lack of robustness. Perhaps they are locked in and find the ongoing cost of dealing with lack of robustness to be lower than the costs of switching to something more robust. Or it could be that they don't notice, for whatever reason, the lack of robustness. There could be many other possible explanations.