On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > I'm gonna disagree here. I think that not having a postgresql inc to go
> > to means that by the time postgresql becomes ubiquitous, it will be like
> > apache. no company behind it, every company using it.
>
> That's not entirely accurate. Apache has had lots of help from IBM, as well
> as a few other very large companies.
but no one company drove the development, and all development was handled
by the apache group, which is built VERY much like the postgresql global
development group.
> > No need for a postgresql inc to do that, just time, good code, and
> > knowledgable DBAs choosing it more and more often.
>
> Sorry, but technical prowess alone is no recipe for success in today's
> marketplace. Things are more complex than that.
Marketplace? like where you sell things? PostgreSQL is free, it competes
outside of the bounds of the "marketplace". Since it doesn't have to make
money to survive, it has a different definition of success, and that is,
to me, that the people who use it and code it find it to be best for their
uses. If others join in and use it or hack on it, that's great, but
postgresql definitely has enough critical mass to continue for many years
to come with little or no marketing. Personally, I don't care if
postgresql captures 1% of the market of 99% of the market, as long as it
remains the solid, reliable dbms engine it is.
It's success is measured in the quality of its code, not the number of
users.
