Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres,
>>> will that APP run?
>
>> So I think the only real difference is in the enhancements we offer in
>> our respective proprietary versions - you offer an integrated
>> replication solution, we offer Oracle compatibility.
>>
>
> EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is
> "based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL.
>
> CMD on the other hand is very clear that our only closed source product
> *is* PostgreSQL but it has replication integrated.
>
> Mammoth PostgreSQL + Replication, is 100% pure PostgreSQL with
> integrated replication.
>
> In fact one of our other "products" which is PostgreSQL Core, clearly
> states that:
>
> PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the
> PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this
> excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and
> commercially supported.
Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are
THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company.
What remains true, is that both our companies offer fine products that
are derived from Community PostgreSQL, but ARE NOT Community PostgreSQL
(if you doubt that, md5sum is your friend). We also both offer support
for our own products, and the community versions.
If you're going to argue that adding a replication engine means you
remain a "PostgreSQL Company", but us adding Oracle compatibility whilst
retaining all PostgreSQL features and syntax means we no longer are,
then with all due respect, you need to cut back on the coffee :-)
Regards, Dave
PS. I spent all day resisting the temptation to jump into this thread,
but I regret that the urge was too great :-(
