Bruce wrote:
> Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community
> development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that
> risks that just to "win", as you say. If we had gone in this direction
> with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it
> might not be what it is today.
The "direction" I think I'm suggesting is actually not all that different
from Great Bridge. And to your point, Great Bridge failed yet Postgres
still thrived.
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.
-andy
