>
> The difference is that you could now correct for Great Bridge's problems,
> which include but are not limited to: timing (4 years has changed a lot for
> commercial acceptance of open source), funding ($25m was too much), and
> strategy (this is not an quick attempt to copy Red Hat).
>
> I think such a project, with the right parameters, is very fundable. If
> anyone wants to talk about that, you should drop me an email off-list; we're
> probably stepping out of topic for the hacker and advocacy lists.
Why would someone fund a "new" PostgreSQL project when there are several
viable commercial entities doing the job right now?
J
>
> -andy
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
