Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>But what if they came in sideways and bought Command Prompt?
>>
>>
>
>Well then I would be sitting on a beach in New Zealend with an umbrella
>drink :)
>
>
>
>> (As an
>>example.) You could do a lot more to destroy PostgreSQL's market in the
>>business world by destroying the various support mechanisms. Your
>>business is much closer to eating their lunch than PostgreSQL itself.
>>
>>
>
>That is a farily good point but one of the beautiful things about Open
>Source is that even if they bought Command Prompt, they would also have
>to buy Pervasive and EnterpriseDB and GreenPlum and SRA.
>
>And then -- by doing so they are just opening the market for a new set
>of companies to start supporting PostgreSQL.
>
>
>
>>So what if they bought Command Prompt (or someone else like it) and then
>>cut it off at the knees? No one ever accused Larry Ellison of being
>>dumb ... different strategies for different opponents.
>>
>>
>
>No, Larry isn't dumb. You don't get to be the second richest man in the
>world by being dumb. However he is very strategic and I don't see (at
>this point) a strategic reason to attack PostgreSQL via Oracle.
>
>
I don't think that PostgreSQL is really on Oracle's radar at the moment.
>PostgreSQL at this point is actually a good value add to the Oracle
>proposition. In 5 years we are probably going to be a immediate direct
>threat but not right now.
>
>
Note that it was a few years ago that MySQL first popped up on Oracle's
radar screen enough for them to add migration tools helping people move
from MySQL to Oracle. I don't see such tools available currently for
PostgreSQL to Oracle migrations at the moment. So I suspect that we are
still seen as the little guy :-) The difference is that while we have a
smaller number of large users, MySQL has a larger number of smaller
users so they technically have better market share numbers *and* they
have better plublicity.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
