On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already
> > adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code
> > contributors.
>
> Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from
> a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL.
> That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are
> scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as
> a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they
> will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts.
> Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our
> project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think
> "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that
> it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Actually, I'm not sure how "viable" MySQL *is* in a commercial environment
... personally, I think that they just shot themselves in the foot with
their recent 'law suit' with NuSphere, no? Other then MySQL AB
themselves, how many are going to jump onto that bandwagon if nobody is
allowed *some* sort of competitive advantage?
> So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty
> has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he
> hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it
> didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in.
> But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops
> being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress
> could improve dramatically.
I don't know ... again, my view of Monty is extended to "if it doesn't get
submitted for review, whether it gets in or not, we'll sue you for breach
of license" ... really gives those considering jumping onto MySQL a warm,
fuzzy feeling, no? :(
