On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I'm with Josh: we have plenty of scroll space, and I think we want to
>> make this tent as big as possible. In fact, I'm even inclined to
>> include closed software as a kind of contribution, although as a
>> lesser one. By way of analogy, I think it makes a very big
>> contribution to Linux that Oracle will run on it; it's not the same
>> thing as paying for Alan Cox, but it's still a significant
>> participation in the community of users.
>
> I have to agree. Had it not been for Oracle running on Linux, I'd have had a
> *much* harder time getting it into our datacenter in the first place. Now
> that it is there and proven, adding new Linux apps (as compared to
> proprietary Unix or Windows) is easy to justify internally.
>
> This past year while preparing for our first foray into data warehousing, I
> found the lack of native support (compared to ODBC) for Postgres in the
> commercial tools (e.g. ETL, BI reporting and analysis, etc) a deal killer
> when it came to using Postgres as our data warehouse. No one but me was
> willing to try to make it work, and instead we opted for a commercial
> database.
>
> The bottom line is that for PostgreSQL to truly flourish in the world of
> corporate datacenters, there needs to be a large body of supporting and
> supported applications, both open source and commercial. We should welcome
> all of them, because they serve our purpose as much as we serve theirs.
Both you and Andrew are arguing software ... this discussion is about
project sponsors / contributions ... or, at least, started as such ...
------
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
