Jan Wieck wrote:
> I would like to add that there is a good reason why they aren't in the
> same league. As a rule of thumb one can say that the smaller a software
> company, the faster some development must turn into revenue. That is why
> Oracle and Microsoft have the "time" to do things right. They can throw
> 20 manyears at a project and if it turns out that wasn't enough, double
> down on that. I include MS on purpose here, because they gain that time
> from some products, and then use it on others like SQL server. MySQL on
> the other hand didn't have that "time" in the past, and look what they
> do as soon as they have 19.5 million seconds more "time" ... the only
> thing that is right, replace the whole architecture, or what is that
> MaxSQL move? I hope 19.5 million seconds are enough, honestly. Because
> nobody will double down in their case.
>
> PostgreSQL does not have that problem because the base project itself
> does not depend on any companies success. Time is relative. Our time is
> very patient compared to their time. PostgreSQL gets the time it needs
> for free.
Yes, I noticed that we have a much longer view of our software lifecycle
than most other open source projects.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
