Re: CRN article - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Subject | Re: CRN article |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.33.0104151119030.72136-100000@mobile.hub.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | CRN article (Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
So, to sum up ... the article did a good job of representing Great Bridge, did a great injustice (a slap in the face, so to say) to the PostgreSQL community as a whole, so Great Bridge has no intention of correcting the situation? Just to clarify your position, of course ... On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Ned Lilly wrote: > Folks, > > By now, I imagine a number of people have seen the piece on the > Computer Reseller News website about Great Bridge and PostgreSQL. > While I think we're all happy to see the increased visibility for > PostgreSQL (especially as compared to the Oracles of the world), > it's fair to say the article wasn't perfect. As Nathan Myers > observed in another post, they rarely are. ;-) > > I thought the reporter did a good job of talking about Great > Bridge's business model and how we work with resellers and > third-party software developers (which after all is the focus of the > magazine). Sure, there were some minor errors of fact, like the > confusion over PostgreSQL's Berkeley origins, and the use of the > word "licensing." > > But of greater concern to us, and the reason I'm writing this note, > is the lack of clarity about the open source community that has > built, and continues to build this software. Great Bridge is one > company, one member of a large community, and a relative newcomer to > the party. We employ several leading PostgreSQL developers, and > give back to the project in many ways, but at the end of the day, > we're still only a very small part of the larger project - which > precedes us by many years, and could very easily survive us as > well. We are *a* marketing channel for PostgreSQL (not *the* > channel), provide services around the software, and release a > QA-certified distribution (bundled with other tools and > applications), but we know that it's not *our* software. It's > everyone's, and I'm sorry the article didn't adequately represent > that reality. > > Having said that, I'd ask everyone to take a deep breath, as Nathan > suggested, and realize that it's still early in the adoption cycle > for open source in the larger business world and the mass media. > There will continue to be nuances that seem blindingly obvious to > us, but slip right through the reporting and editing process in the > trade press. That's ok, as long as we correct those errors, as > delicately as possible ;-) > > We all have a shared stake in PostgreSQL being more widely used and > appreciated, and how we respond to things like this will go a long > way toward furthering that goal. You can all be justifiably proud > of the work that's gone into PostgreSQL, leading up to the terrific > 7.1 release; a big part of Great Bridge's job as a marketing > organization is to make sure the world finds out about it - an > ongoing job that we take very seriously. > > If anyone has any questions about Great Bridge's position on this > kind of stuff, please feel free to email me off-list. > > Thanks, > Ned > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Ned Lilly e: ned@greatbridge.com > Vice President w: www.greatbridge.com > Evangelism / Hacker Relations v: 757.233.5523 > Great Bridge, LLC f: 757.233.5555 > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
pgsql-hackers by date: