Oliver Elphick wrote:
> If we want people to use PostgreSQL in preference to anything else, we
> have to make it known. That is marketing. If we believe we have a good
> product we need to say so and say why and how it's better, cheaper and
> purer than anything else. If there's no good marketing, bad marketing
> will rule the world for sure.
>
> If we don't care, we can retreat into a pure technological huddle and
> disappear up our own navels. The rest of the world won't even notice.
> Such purity will eventually destroy the project because it will lose the
> momentum for growth through a lack of new input. You can grow or you
> can decline; a steady state is almost impossible to achieve.
Couldn't agree more with that last point.
I've had the perspective of working in big companies using various database software, a company specifically focused on
PostgreSQL(Great Bridge), and now a new ISV with PostgreSQL underneath a vertical application (OpenMFG). I can tell
youthat even though the pgsql-hacker community is as strong as it's ever been, I think there's a serious danger of the
largerworld passing PostgreSQL by.
Oracle and DB2 continue to get better and - significantly - cheaper, and SQL Server ... well, Oracle and DB2 are
gettingbetter. MySQL, even though it's an inferior product for most real database work, has always had a significantly
largerinstalled base than PostgreSQL- and it's less controversial for people like Sun (who have deep relationships with
Oracle)to get involved with. And despite the productizing of RHDB, Red Hat doesn't seem interested in making a real
pushfor PostgreSQL either. While there are a number of smaller companies trying to help out, I think it's clear that
theburden for helping PostgreSQL to find wider acceptance in the marketplace will be on the pgsql-hacker community for
sometime to come.
I applaud the efforts of the advocacy group, and encourage others here not to look at the marketing as somehow dirty or
beneaththe dignity of the project.
Keep up the good work,
Ned
