Thread: Call from Info World
I got a call from Info World asking for a few details about our press release. He wanted specifics about the data warehouse improvements. I told him it was related to optimizer and executor improvements that allow typical data warehouse queries to run faster. He also asked about the price of PostgreSQL. I told him it was a community project and was free. "Well, how do you make money?" I said we don't. There are commercial companies that provide technical support for PostgreSQL, and they pay the salaries of a few full-time developers, but they do not control the direction of the community project, and most of our developers are volunteers. He wanted to know the names of some of the support companies, and I mentioned SRA, Command Prompt, and dbexperts. (I didn't mention PostgreSQL, Inc because as Josh suggested, having the company name match the db name is confusing.) I also stated that the community provides support through mailing lists and that is quite successful. Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good example someone can think of? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce, > Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > example someone can think of? Perl, amanda, Python, OpenACS and LTSP come to mind. I also get the impression that there's been a significant split between Zend Inc. and the larger PHP community lately (over Parrot, mostly, I think), so Zend obviously don't "control" the PHP project. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
>Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that >isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, >Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has >significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good >example someone can think of? > > > Well, as much as I hate to admit it... Red Hat would be the closest that I can think of. They employ Tom and are probably the most visible of Open Source companies there is (at least in the states). Although they don't in anyway control the direction, Tom is fairly influential ;). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:46, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > Here is the article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/20/HNpostgre_1.html > > Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > > isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > > Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > > significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > > example someone can think of? > > Perl, amanda, Python, OpenACS and LTSP come to mind. > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql. > I also get the impression that there's been a significant split between Zend > Inc. and the larger PHP community lately (over Parrot, mostly, I think), so > Zend obviously don't "control" the PHP project. > Well... I don't know that I would say they control the project, but it does seem that php's advances are directly linked to the direction of Zend. The whole zend engine underscores the point, and I think that a lot of the OO stuff in php5 was "eagerly desired" by the zend folks. The truth is that to be a "name" project you need to interface with the media, and the media is generally best at interfacing with companies. Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 17:07, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:46, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > Here is the article: > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/20/HNpostgre_1.html > > > > > Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > > > isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > > > Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > > > significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > > > example someone can think of? > > > > Perl, amanda, Python, OpenACS and LTSP come to mind. > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql. How about not-for-profits? FreeBSD, KDE?
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > >isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > >Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > >significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > >example someone can think of? > > > > > > > Well, as much as I hate to admit it... Red Hat would be the closest that I > can think of. They employ Tom and are probably the most visible of Open > Source companies there is (at least in the states). > > Although they don't in anyway control the direction, Tom is fairly > influential ;). But the issue is that he is looking for a company that controls PostgreSQL, and there isn't want. Throwing him the most likely candidate (Red Hat) is really misleading him because he is looking for something that doesn't exist (a company that controls PostgreSQL development). -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:46, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > Here is the article: > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/20/HNpostgre_1.html > > > > > Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > > > isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > > > Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > > > significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > > > example someone can think of? > > > > Perl, amanda, Python, OpenACS and LTSP come to mind. > > > > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql. Yea, I said Apache didn't fit the list, but I was thinking of Sendmail at the time, which is controlled by Sendmail, Inc. (Talk about confusing with PostgreSQL, Inc. Yuck.) Anyway, Apache might be closest. > > > I also get the impression that there's been a significant split between Zend > > Inc. and the larger PHP community lately (over Parrot, mostly, I think), so > > Zend obviously don't "control" the PHP project. > > > > Well... I don't know that I would say they control the project, but it > does seem that php's advances are directly linked to the direction of > Zend. The whole zend engine underscores the point, and I think that a > lot of the OO stuff in php5 was "eagerly desired" by the zend folks. Well, here is a quote from my PHP International conference report: > I spent time with a number of folks at the event. One disturbing thing, > without going into deals, is that the PHP development community seems to > have every disfunction I can think of. That upset me because I assumed > open source development communities were just all big, happy places, but > the reality I now know is quite different. That scared me and I > realized it could happen to PostgreSQL one day if we are not diligent. > Sobering. This "disfunction" includes being controlled mostly by what is good for Zend. > The truth is that to be a "name" project you need to interface with the > media, and the media is generally best at interfacing with companies. Yep, but with our press release and contact, they seem to be able to deal with our structured community too. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Rod Taylor wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 17:07, Robert Treat wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:46, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Bruce, > > > > > > > Here is the article: > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/20/HNpostgre_1.html > > > > > > > > Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > > > > isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > > > > Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > > > > significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > > > > example someone can think of? > > > > > > Perl, amanda, Python, OpenACS and LTSP come to mind. > > > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the > > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python > > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql. > > How about not-for-profits? FreeBSD, KDE? I mentioned FreeBSD but that didn't seem to register with him. I doubt KDE would either. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > Interestingly, in trying to think of a visible open source project that > > isn't controlled by a company, I couldn't think of one. Mozilla, PHP, > > Apache, MySQL, even perhaps Linux have one very visible company that has > > significant control over the project, while we do not. Is there a good > > example someone can think of? > > Perl, amanda, Python, OpenACS and LTSP come to mind. > > I also get the impression that there's been a significant split between Zend > Inc. and the larger PHP community lately (over Parrot, mostly, I think), so > Zend obviously don't "control" the PHP project. Well, it remains to be seen how well Parrot is implemented. It is mostly lead by Theis and Sterling. I spend a lot of time with them at the PHP conference. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>Anyway, Apache might be closest. > > > Don't forget Mozilla with the Mozilla Foundation. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >> >> >> >>>I also get the impression that there's been a significant split between Zend >>>Inc. and the larger PHP community lately (over Parrot, mostly, I think), so >>>Zend obviously don't "control" the PHP project. >>> >>> >>> >>Well... I don't know that I would say they control the project, but it >>does seem that php's advances are directly linked to the direction of >>Zend. The whole zend engine underscores the point, and I think that a >>lot of the OO stuff in php5 was "eagerly desired" by the zend folks. >> >> > >Well, here is a quote from my PHP International conference report: > > > >>I spent time with a number of folks at the event. One disturbing thing, >>without going into deals, is that the PHP development community seems to >>have every disfunction I can think of. That upset me because I assumed >>open source development communities were just all big, happy places, but >>the reality I now know is quite different. That scared me and I >>realized it could happen to PostgreSQL one day if we are not diligent. >>Sobering. >> >> > >This "disfunction" includes being controlled mostly by what is good for Zend. > > > >>The truth is that to be a "name" project you need to interface with the >>media, and the media is generally best at interfacing with companies. >> >> > >Yep, but with our press release and contact, they seem to be able to deal with >our structured community too. > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >Anyway, Apache might be closest. > > > > > > > Don't forget Mozilla with the Mozilla Foundation. Yea, but historically AOL/Netscape --- confusing. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Guys, > > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the > > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python > > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql. So? They are open source projects. Linux isn't a piece of software like us either. > Yea, I said Apache didn't fit the list, but I was thinking of Sendmail > at the time, which is controlled by Sendmail, Inc. (Talk about > confusing with PostgreSQL, Inc. Yuck.) > > Anyway, Apache might be closest. No, Apache is very dominated by IBM, at least they were a year ago ... I've heard lots of bitching about it from their mailing lists and nasty politics. Other projects that I'mm pretty sure aren't corporate-run: Samba, Abiword, Gnucash, Webmin, OpenGroupware, Hordemail. I believe that KDE is rather dominated by SuSE these days, but I could be wrong. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > No, Apache is very dominated by IBM, at least they were a year ago ... > I've heard lots of bitching about it from their mailing lists and nasty > politics. IBM? I thought the big force behind Apache was Covalent? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Josh Berkus wrote: > Guys, > > > > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the > > > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python > > > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql. > > So? They are open source projects. Linux isn't a piece of software like us > either. Linux isn't a good example because you can't just run the Linux kernel alone --- you need applications and stuff and that isn't part of Linux proper and is added by companies or other organizations, and Linux is gatekeeper, which we don't do. > > Yea, I said Apache didn't fit the list, but I was thinking of Sendmail > > at the time, which is controlled by Sendmail, Inc. (Talk about > > confusing with PostgreSQL, Inc. Yuck.) > > > > Anyway, Apache might be closest. > > No, Apache is very dominated by IBM, at least they were a year ago ... I've > heard lots of bitching about it from their mailing lists and nasty politics. Oh, great, there goes that good example. Are we the only big open-source project that isn't controlled by corporations? > Other projects that I'mm pretty sure aren't corporate-run: Samba, Abiword, > Gnucash, Webmin, OpenGroupware, Hordemail. And who has heard of those? NO ONE! Samba, maybe, but not really outside open-source circles. > I believe that KDE is rather dominated by SuSE these days, but I could be > wrong. Even KDE isn't known outside open source. We might be the first. What is wrong with us that no corporation wants to control us. Even Great Bridge didn't control us when they were around. This is strange. I am now seeing how unique we are. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Oh, great, there goes that good example. Are we the only big > open-source project that isn't controlled by corporations? Certainly not. >> Other projects that I'mm pretty sure aren't corporate-run: Samba, >> Abiword, Gnucash, Webmin, OpenGroupware, Hordemail. > > And who has heard of those? NO ONE! You don't judge how big or how significant an OSS project is by how many people have heard of it. Judged by that criterion, we certainly don't do very well, for example. > Samba, maybe, but not really outside open-source circles. Compared to PostgreSQL, I'm sure Samba is FAR better known outside of OSS enthusiasts. The same applies to KDE, which you also suggested "isn't known outside open source". > This is strange. I am now seeing how unique we are. On the contrary, GCC, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, Slackware, XFree86, Perl, Python, Ruby, The Gimp, Firebird and Enlightenment are the first counter-examples I can think of, but I'm sure there are plenty more. -Neil
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 12:10:16AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Anyway, Apache might be closest. > > > > No, Apache is very dominated by IBM, at least they were a year ago ... I've > > heard lots of bitching about it from their mailing lists and nasty politics. > > Oh, great, there goes that good example. Are we the only big > open-source project that isn't controlled by corporations? Gnome is a big project involving lots of people and lots of corporations, but it's not controlled by any one of them. I _think_ it's similar to PostgreSQL in that there is a core of people that could be said to "control" it. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) "El realista sabe lo que quiere; el idealista quiere lo que sabe" (An�nimo)
Neil Conway wrote: > Compared to PostgreSQL, I'm sure Samba is FAR better known outside of > OSS enthusiasts. The same applies to KDE, which you also suggested > "isn't known outside open source". I agree. Samba is a very important project. Samba was almost single-handedly responsible for Linux penetrating MS/Novell IT departments for non web/email type stuff. Samba is popular in the same type of environments that PostgreSQL will by popular in. The webmin project is picking up steam. For people with non-unix backgrounds (like me) it is incredibly helpful. I think we are going to be hearing more about it in the near future. > On the contrary, GCC, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, Slackware, > XFree86, Perl, Python, Ruby, The Gimp, Firebird and Enlightenment are > the first counter-examples I can think of, but I'm sure there are > plenty more. The FreeBSD project strikes me as having a lot of similarities with PostgreSQL. In fact, in the past I would have made an analogy of postgres : freebsd :: mysql : linux (wrt development style). Recently, though, that seems to have broken down. Merlin
Alvaro, > Gnome is a big project involving lots of people and lots of corporations, > but it's not controlled by any one of them. I _think_ it's similar to > PostgreSQL in that there is a core of people that could be said to > "control" it. Though to hear about it second-hand, the corporations involved collectively control it; that is, Sun, Ximian, IBM, Novell, and a couple of others all have execs on the Gnome board and independant contributors don't get any say. Mind you, this is from a Debian person bitching about it at LinuxWorld 2003, so they may have been exaggerating .... That's very different from our project, where corporations have sway over their contributor-employees, and sometimes not even that. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:45:07AM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> You don't judge how big or how significant an OSS project is by how
> many people have heard of it. Judged by that criterion, we certainly
> don't do very well, for example.
Well, you do when you're talking to the press. That's what they care
about after all. In that context, "good" = "I've heard of it".
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Bruce Momjian writes: > He also asked about the price of PostgreSQL. I told him it was a > community project and was free. "Well, how do you make money?" I said > we don't. There are commercial companies that provide technical support > for PostgreSQL, and they pay the salaries of a few full-time developers, You think people are confused? I once had a call from a company that wanted PostgreSQL to sponsor *them*. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 18:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > He also asked about the price of PostgreSQL. I told him it was a > > community project and was free. "Well, how do you make money?" I said > > we don't. There are commercial companies that provide technical support > > for PostgreSQL, and they pay the salaries of a few full-time developers, > > You think people are confused? I once had a call from a company that > wanted PostgreSQL to sponsor *them*. heh, so did we? Should have grabbed a copy of their business plan and told them would supply database software free of charge for a 1% cut of their gross intake. Then start talking about Oracle, DB2 and MSSQL licencing fees ;)
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Guys,
>
> > > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the
> > > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python
> > > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql.
>
> So? They are open source projects. Linux isn't a piece of software like us
> either.
>
> > Yea, I said Apache didn't fit the list, but I was thinking of Sendmail
> > at the time, which is controlled by Sendmail, Inc. (Talk about
> > confusing with PostgreSQL, Inc. Yuck.)
> >
> > Anyway, Apache might be closest.
>
> No, Apache is very dominated by IBM, at least they were a year ago ... I've
> heard lots of bitching about it from their mailing lists and nasty politics.
>
> Other projects that I'mm pretty sure aren't corporate-run: Samba, Abiword,
> Gnucash, Webmin, OpenGroupware, Hordemail.
>
> I believe that KDE is rather dominated by SuSE these days, but I could be
> wrong.
Here is what I have come up with for a future talk. Is it accurate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniqueness of PostgreSQL as an Open Source Project
Not like:
* Not Linux - no single gatekeeper, project is usable without enhancement
* Not Mozilla - no company history like AOL/Netscape
* Not Open Office - no controlling company like Sun
* Not Gnome - no controlling companies
* Not PHP - no Zend steering development
* Not Sendmail - no control by Sendmail, Inc.
* Not MySQL - no MySQL AB that does all server development
More like:
* FreeBSD - community project
* Samba - active developer community
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce, > Not like: > > * Not Linux - no single gatekeeper, project is usable without > enhancement * Not Mozilla - no company history like AOL/Netscape > * Not Open Office - no controlling company like Sun > * Not Gnome - no controlling companies > * Not PHP - no Zend steering development > * Not Sendmail - no control by Sendmail, Inc. > * Not MySQL - no MySQL AB that does all server development Some of these examples are redundant. Really, there's only 6 models for OSS projects: (please note that the projects cited are NOT based on in-depth research and may be wrongly classified) 1) Ours: a diffuse leadership structure with a variety of individuals and companies, but the only participants with clearly "louder voices" are individuals with seniority & responsibility. Examples: Us, LTSP, Samba, FreeBSD. 2) Heirarchical: large "volunteer" distributed network of contributors, but tightly controlled heirarchy at the top (usually a single "high priest"). Model shared by Linux, Perl, Python, OpenBSD. Very common for projects that started as a single person's work. 3) Corporate-Council: projects which, due to their commercial value to several companies, are run by a group of company-appointed representatives, with independant developers largely excluded. Examples Gnome, XFree86. 4) Corporate-Sponsored: projects which either recently or historically have been financially sponsored by a single company, foundation, or university. As a result, leadership is hybrid of developer seniority and company/foundation influence. Examples: Apache, PHP, Slashcode 5) Corporate-owned: Open Source software which is really part of a single company's project line, and is often offered alongside proprietary offerings or accessories based on the same code. The company's paid development team and the project's leadership are identical. Examples: MySQL, OpenOffice.org, Eclipse, Sendmail, Sourceforge. 6) Single-developer: By far the numerical majority of OSS projects, these projects seldom have more than one or two serious developers and a few dozen users submitting bugs. Examples: Flexbackup, XCDRoast, and SQLite up until 6 months ago. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
The Info World article has appeared:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/20/HNpostgre_1.html
Based on the questions he asked, I thought he was going to do a more
detailed article, but I now realize it was probably just so he
understands the project itself.
You can see that they refer to us as a "company" earlier in the article:
"the company also has added"
Anyway, at the end, they clarify that it is an open source project.
Hopefully this is the start of many more articles.
They only mentioned SRA. I was hoping he would say we have support
companies world-wide. Anyway, it was a nice article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Guys,
>
> > > Hmm... I don't see amanda, openacs, or ltsp all that visible to the
> > > greater tech (ie. commercially driven) community, and Perl and Python
> > > aren't really the same; there not a piece of software like postgresql.
>
> So? They are open source projects. Linux isn't a piece of software like us
> either.
>
> > Yea, I said Apache didn't fit the list, but I was thinking of Sendmail
> > at the time, which is controlled by Sendmail, Inc. (Talk about
> > confusing with PostgreSQL, Inc. Yuck.)
> >
> > Anyway, Apache might be closest.
>
> No, Apache is very dominated by IBM, at least they were a year ago ... I've
> heard lots of bitching about it from their mailing lists and nasty politics.
>
> Other projects that I'mm pretty sure aren't corporate-run: Samba, Abiword,
> Gnucash, Webmin, OpenGroupware, Hordemail.
>
> I believe that KDE is rather dominated by SuSE these days, but I could be
> wrong.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
> They only mentioned SRA. I was hoping he would say we have support > companies world-wide. Anyway, it was a nice article. It was "companies such as" SRA, which is much better than locking it down to strictly SRA. If you gave him Redhat you probably would have gotten both mentioned. The kicker? I got an IBM ad for DB2.
Rod Taylor wrote: > > They only mentioned SRA. I was hoping he would say we have support > > companies world-wide. Anyway, it was a nice article. > > It was "companies such as" SRA, which is much better than locking it > down to strictly SRA. Oh, yea, I see the "such as" now. Good. > If you gave him Redhat you probably would have gotten both mentioned. I didn't mention Red Hat specifically because they don't offer PostgreSQL support at this time, and I confirmed this with Tom in a phone call later. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Josh, may I use these ideas in a talk I am working on? Can I put your name at the bottom of the slide as attribution? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > Not like: > > > > * Not Linux - no single gatekeeper, project is usable without > > enhancement * Not Mozilla - no company history like AOL/Netscape > > * Not Open Office - no controlling company like Sun > > * Not Gnome - no controlling companies > > * Not PHP - no Zend steering development > > * Not Sendmail - no control by Sendmail, Inc. > > * Not MySQL - no MySQL AB that does all server development > > Some of these examples are redundant. Really, there's only 6 models for OSS > projects: > > (please note that the projects cited are NOT based on in-depth research and > may be wrongly classified) > 1) Ours: a diffuse leadership structure with a variety of individuals and > companies, but the only participants with clearly "louder voices" are > individuals with seniority & responsibility. Examples: Us, LTSP, Samba, > FreeBSD. > 2) Heirarchical: large "volunteer" distributed network of contributors, but > tightly controlled heirarchy at the top (usually a single "high priest"). > Model shared by Linux, Perl, Python, OpenBSD. Very common for projects that > started as a single person's work. > 3) Corporate-Council: projects which, due to their commercial value to several > companies, are run by a group of company-appointed representatives, with > independant developers largely excluded. Examples Gnome, XFree86. > 4) Corporate-Sponsored: projects which either recently or historically have > been financially sponsored by a single company, foundation, or university. > As a result, leadership is hybrid of developer seniority and > company/foundation influence. Examples: Apache, PHP, Slashcode > 5) Corporate-owned: Open Source software which is really part of a single > company's project line, and is often offered alongside proprietary offerings > or accessories based on the same code. The company's paid development team > and the project's leadership are identical. Examples: MySQL, OpenOffice.org, > Eclipse, Sendmail, Sourceforge. > 6) Single-developer: By far the numerical majority of OSS projects, these > projects seldom have more than one or two serious developers and a few dozen > users submitting bugs. Examples: Flexbackup, XCDRoast, and SQLite up until > 6 months ago. > > -- > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:15:52AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 1) Ours: a diffuse leadership structure with a variety of individuals and > > companies, but the only participants with clearly "louder voices" are > > individuals with seniority & responsibility. Examples: Us, LTSP, Samba, > > FreeBSD. Debian is probably the largest project belonging into the category. > > 4) Corporate-Sponsored: projects which either recently or historically have > > been financially sponsored by a single company, foundation, or university. > > As a result, leadership is hybrid of developer seniority and > > company/foundation influence. Examples: Apache, PHP, Slashcode Hmm, I wonder if KDE belongs here or to 1). Have to check the details. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Oh, great, there goes that good example. Are we the only big > > open-source project that isn't controlled by corporations? > > Certainly not. > > >> Other projects that I'mm pretty sure aren't corporate-run: Samba, > >> Abiword, Gnucash, Webmin, OpenGroupware, Hordemail. > > > > And who has heard of those? NO ONE! > > You don't judge how big or how significant an OSS project is by how > many people have heard of it. Judged by that criterion, we certainly > don't do very well, for example. We are doing much better than we used to. I would say most db guys not involved in open source have heard of PostgreSQL at this point. Are other people seeing this? I am. > > > Samba, maybe, but not really outside open-source circles. > > Compared to PostgreSQL, I'm sure Samba is FAR better known outside of > OSS enthusiasts. The same applies to KDE, which you also suggested > "isn't known outside open source". One of the problems with using KDE or Samba is that there isn't well-known commercial that has a similar function for comparison. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian writes: > One of the problems with using KDE or Samba is that there isn't > well-known commercial that has a similar function for comparison. Windows -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > One of the problems with using KDE or Samba is that there isn't > > well-known commercial that has a similar function for comparison. > > Windows Just to elaborate for Bruce ... Samba is an OSS alternative for MicroSoft's Domain Controller that runs under Unix ... I've used it for >7 years now in various ways, but the big thing has always been as a means to all Windows users the ability to 'mount' their user directories fro a Unix box to their local Windows ... allows for both file and printer sharing, as well as can be configured to act as a Primary Domain Controller in lieu of soemthing like NT or Windows2000 ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > One of the problems with using KDE or Samba is that there isn't > > well-known commercial that has a similar function for comparison. > > Windows Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than Windows-KDE. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian writes: > Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and > file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than > Windows-KDE. Oracle is also more than an SQL database server. What is your point? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and > > file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than > > Windows-KDE. > > Oracle is also more than an SQL database server. What is your point? The _main_ product of Oracle is a database server --- the main product of Windows is not a window manager. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and > > > file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than > > > Windows-KDE. > > > > Oracle is also more than an SQL database server. What is your point? > > The _main_ product of Oracle is a database server --- the main product > of Windows is not a window manager. It isn't? The main product of Microsoft isn't a window manager, but Windows is one of their products ... IE is a seperate product, that is bundled with Windows, but, then again, Konqueror is a seperate product bundled with KDE ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > > > Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and > > > > file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than > > > > Windows-KDE. > > > > > > Oracle is also more than an SQL database server. What is your point? > > > > The _main_ product of Oracle is a database server --- the main product > > of Windows is not a window manager. > > It isn't? The main product of Microsoft isn't a window manager, but > Windows is one of their products ... IE is a seperate product, that is > bundled with Windows, but, then again, Konqueror is a seperate product > bundled with KDE ... Windows is an operating system and window manager. For KDE, Unix is the operating system. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > It isn't? The main product of Microsoft isn't a window manager, but > > Windows is one of their products ... IE is a seperate product, that is > > bundled with Windows, but, then again, Konqueror is a seperate product > > bundled with KDE ... > > Windows is an operating system and window manager. For KDE, Unix is the > operating system. Windows only evolved to that point ... I can remember when Windows required a DOS install first ... like the rest of what is in Windows, DOS got "absorbed" as standard ... note that when you are in Windows, you can still get to the command.com prompt, and run "DOS" commands ... Doesn't RedHat have a "desktop edition" that auto-installs everything, including Window Manager, to "hide" the OS? Actually, I think with their shift to Enterprise, that would be "didn't they have", but that is neither here nor there. The point is that it would be very easy to create a distro that hid the OS from the end user, just like Windows ... throw Samba in on top of that, and you effectively have a Windows Server, no? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > > > > > Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and > > > > > file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than > > > > > Windows-KDE. > > > > > > > > Oracle is also more than an SQL database server. What is your point? > > > > > > The _main_ product of Oracle is a database server --- the main product > > > of Windows is not a window manager. > > > > It isn't? The main product of Microsoft isn't a window manager, but > > Windows is one of their products ... IE is a seperate product, that is > > bundled with Windows, but, then again, Konqueror is a seperate product > > bundled with KDE ... > > Windows is an operating system and window manager. For KDE, Unix is the > operating system. KDE is not a window manager. In fact, the window manager is just a part of KDE, and a very small part. KDE is a whole platform for application development, and a set of libraries, and a set of applications. KDE is equivalent to a part of Windows -- the whole GUI of Windows and the part of the SDK probably (unless you also want to involve GCC and the glibc, etc). Another part of Windows is the file and print server. That is equivalent to Samba, which was mentioned in this thread earlier. I think in OSS the separation between the various parts is much clearer: one product, and one project, to do one thing. This is not true for the Windows family of products, or Java for instance (which is several things: a language specification, a class library, a compiler, ...) But the whole discussion is pointless anyway, isn't it? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) La web junta la gente porque no importa que clase de mutante sexual seas, tienes millones de posibles parejas. Pon "buscar gente que tengan sexo con ciervos incendiánse", y el computador dirá "especifique el tipo de ciervo" (Jason Alexander)
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > It isn't? The main product of Microsoft isn't a window manager, but > > > Windows is one of their products ... IE is a seperate product, that is > > > bundled with Windows, but, then again, Konqueror is a seperate product > > > bundled with KDE ... > > > > Windows is an operating system and window manager. For KDE, Unix is the > > operating system. > > Windows only evolved to that point ... I can remember when Windows > required a DOS install first ... like the rest of what is in Windows, DOS > got "absorbed" as standard ... note that when you are in Windows, you can > still get to the command.com prompt, and run "DOS" commands ... > > Doesn't RedHat have a "desktop edition" that auto-installs everything, > including Window Manager, to "hide" the OS? Actually, I think with their > shift to Enterprise, that would be "didn't they have", but that is neither > here nor there. The point is that it would be very easy to create a > distro that hid the OS from the end user, just like Windows ... throw > Samba in on top of that, and you effectively have a Windows Server, no? Yes, you do, but in the open source world, you need several open source projects together to make something similar in functionality to Windows. I am not saying that is wrong, and in fact it is often better, but you can't make a clear parallel between KDE and Windows, or Samba and Windows. What you could do is to draw similarity between Windows and Linux/KDE/Samba, but that is quite a mouthful for people to understand --- it is 1 to 3, not one to 1 as it is with Oracle-PostgreSQL. I don't think Oracle add-ons and applications are the same level as saying the window manager is an add-on to Windows --- you can't run Windows without a window manager (or it isn't regularly done), while you can run Oracle alone, and many do. Of course, this is all from a marketing perspective, so it has to be simple. Saying KDE is like Windows just isn't accurate because KDE isn't an operating system or file server. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Yes, you do, but in the open source world, you need several open source > projects together to make something similar in functionality to Windows. Right, what the end user (or distro) has to pull together in a symbiotic relationship between projects, Microsoft acquires financially :) > I am not saying that is wrong, and in fact it is often better, but you > can't make a clear parallel between KDE and Windows, or Samba and > Windows. What you could do is to draw similarity between Windows and > Linux/KDE/Samba, but that is quite a mouthful for people to understand --- > it is 1 to 3, not one to 1 as it is with Oracle-PostgreSQL. Only because Windows has 'acquired' the technology and bundled it as it saw fit ... at one point, they were distinct parts ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Yes, you do, but in the open source world, you need several open source > > projects together to make something similar in functionality to Windows. > > Right, what the end user (or distro) has to pull together in a symbiotic > relationship between projects, Microsoft acquires financially :) Right, you could compare Red Hat to Windows, but of course Red Hat isn't an open source project --- it is a company, and in fact Linux doesn't even work as a comparison because the kernel is just an operating system, not a window manager, file server, etc. > > I am not saying that is wrong, and in fact it is often better, but you > > can't make a clear parallel between KDE and Windows, or Samba and > > Windows. What you could do is to draw similarity between Windows and > > Linux/KDE/Samba, but that is quite a mouthful for people to understand --- > > it is 1 to 3, not one to 1 as it is with Oracle-PostgreSQL. > > Only because Windows has 'acquired' the technology and bundled it as it > saw fit ... at one point, they were distinct parts ... Maybe, but the point is that PostgreSQL is a single piece of software that compares mostly feature for feature to commercial software, and there aren't a lot of open source projects like that, and even fewer that aren't controlled by a company or group of companies. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Oops! pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) was seen spray-painting on a wall: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Bruce Momjian writes: >> >> > One of the problems with using KDE or Samba is that there isn't >> > well-known commercial that has a similar function for comparison. >> >> Windows > > Well, not really 1 for 1. Windows is more than a window manager and > file server. I think the Oracle-PostgreSQL 1:1 linkage is closer than > Windows-KDE. Originally, Samba was a "clone" of Pathworks, with the intent of running it on AIX, not just on Digital Unix. (Happily, that purpose is still meaningful, as AIX has survived the "Unix wars" :-).) Historically, what people knowing history would think of as the "Microsoft analogue" would be LANMAN, which I think was originally OS/2 LAN Manager, but which later became Windows LAN Manager, and then morphed into NT Advanced Server. Even if that is all a bit nebulous, it's fair to call Samba the a pretty good equivalent to what would be generically called "Windows File Services." As for GNOME or KDE, they don't particularly correspond to anything clear on Windows. KDE certainly has something of an inheritance of ideas from CDE (Common Desktop Environment), which was a UNIX(tm) thing. And that points to a bit of a problem in comparing PostgreSQL to Oracle; PG is quite clearly a "database server," whereas Oracle's product line has gotten increasingly nebulous, over time, as they have assortedly thrown in Java "application server" support as well as XML support. In the distant past, the "important extra" was SQL*Forms. I'm not quite sure what the modern equivalent is... It is Really Valuable (to Larry Ellison's bottom line!) if you buy into extended services that lead to vendor lock-in and prevent you from even _imagining_ a migration to another DBMS. If the porting effort would cost $50M, he can quite safely hike annual licensing fees by $5M... Long and short of it all is that trying to define equivalents that can be summed up in one word is dangerous to the thinking process. It may be all that "Pointy Haired Bosses" can cope with, but the aftermath of the recent space shuttle disaster demonstrates that there's a true problem here. The analysis of the investigation of the foam damage pushed it into a "bullet point" that effectively hid the life-threatening nature of the situation. The investigating board was rather critical about this: "The board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA." There are times you need to dumb things down, but apparently NASA got on the wrong side of the curve. They _are_ "rocket scientists," and dumbing things down leads to dead astronauts. -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "ntlug.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html Did you hear about the Buddhist who refused his dentist's novocaine during root canal work? He wanted to transcend dental medication.
Christopher Browne wrote: > Long and short of it all is that trying to define equivalents that can > be summed up in one word is dangerous to the thinking process. It may > be all that "Pointy Haired Bosses" can cope with, but the aftermath of > the recent space shuttle disaster demonstrates that there's a true > problem here. If we want to efficiently communicate our value to businesses, we need that "one word" explaination. Very few people have a longer attention span than that --- you can say it isn't ideal, but it is true. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Michael, > Hmm, I wonder if KDE belongs here or to 1). Have to check the details. Yeah, I don't know where KDE belongs. I've the impression that they are corporate-sponsored with an unusually high number of independant developers, but that's based on rumor, not research. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco