Andrew Payne wrote:
> > My concern about a single company, as all of us are, is that we kill the
> > community that created the software, which then burdens the single
> > company to steer development, leading to disaster.
>
> Understood, and that's the potential catch-22. This is the problem with
> capital: no smart investor is going to fund a company to promote and
> support an project like Postgres if there's nothing to prevent 5 other
> investors and teams from doing the exact same thing. There MAY be a way to
> form something that's supportive and respectful of the community, and I
> think it's worth trying to figure that out.
>
> Bottom line: the Postgres project is at a stage where the non-technical
> factors (marketing, partnerships) are at least as important as the technical
> ones. Postgres may "lose" because of lacking technology (such as win32
> support, though coming soon), but will not necessarily "win" with the best
> technology.
Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community
development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that
risks that just to "win", as you say. If we had gone in this direction
with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it
might not be what it is today.
--
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
