joe_audette@yahoo.com (Joe Audette) writes:
> My guess is what this really means is they weren't making money on
> it. Its a community friendly spin to suggest that community support
> is so good that not many companies will pony up for commercial
> support. My guess is that its fairly accurate though. A company is
> only going to use postgreSQL if their dba is behind it and for that
> to be the case the dba is probably pretty comfortable with their own
> knowledge backed by community support. If its not the dba who is
> promoting pgsql in the company then it is likely an exec who sees it
> as a way to save money and likely doesn't want to pay for support
> for a free product.
Also, it's worth considering that there are other service
organizations out there. With some of its "staff acquisitions,"
Command Prompt has more staff at a high technical level with
PostgreSQL than Pervasive did.
In effect, this suggests that CP (and others that are generally
smaller players) "beat out" Pervasive.
I also have heard vaguely that there may have been other politicking
taking place inside Pervasive. Becoming a successful PG "shop" wasn't
necessarily something everyone there agreed they wanted to do. I have
no special knowledge about such, but would strongly suspect that
there's more to the story than will ever meet our eyes.
I suppose it would be at least somewhat interesting to watch what they
do next; if it *isn't* to go in some clear new technical direction,
that would support the notion that what happened wasn't "about us."
--
"cbbrowne","@","acm.org"
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/finances.html
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
- Arthur Dent
