> On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Simon,
>
> * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>>> starting to show my own bias.
>>
>> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.
>
> What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
> to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
> single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
> Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.
That’s the big takeaway.
Like a lot of “cage matches,” the outcome is predetermined for the audience, so I think it’s wasted energy to
overanalyzehow they are going to present PostgreSQL because we know it won’t be #1 from that context. One big
advantagethe PostgreSQL community has is the fact it is decentralized and it is in the best interests of all the major
PostgreSQLcontributors to promote utilizing PostgreSQL. A lot of this is happening organically too, as more people and
organizationsare adopting PostgreSQL than ever before thus creating a viral, self-fulfilling cycle.
In short: we just need to keep building a superior product, provide best-in-class support, and let people know about
it.
Jonathan
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
