Thread: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 9.0
On 1/30/07, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> Who would they target anyways?
> >> There's no one company....
> >
> > They could buy out CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB...
> >
> > The buyouts wouldn't *kill* pg, but they would wound it mightily.
>
> I don't think so. High-profile and high priced buyouts
> of CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB would be great for
> postgresql.
>
> It would be a strong motivation for entrepreneurs to start
> postgresql companies, developers to build postgresql expertise,
> VCs to invest in postgresql companies. And guys like Pervasive
> would be kicking themselves for not keeping sticking with it.
One would think that with the acquisiton of Berkeley DB and InnoDB
one should see a flourish of database engine startups, but I seem
to have missed that.
My point is, its not about throwing money at a problem. PostgreSQL
seems to be having right people at the right place and benefits from
it. They do the hard work, they do it well, hence 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 and
upcoming 8.3 release. If you buy these people out, it will take time
to find and teach new ones. Writing RDBMS is not dusting crops,
ya know. ;)))
Regards,
Dawid
PS: I guess this thread belongs in advocacy, please update To: headers
accordingly.
Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > On 1/30/07, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote: > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >> Who would they target anyways? > > >> There's no one company.... > > > > > > They could buy out CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB... > > > > > > The buyouts wouldn't *kill* pg, but they would wound it mightily. > > > > I don't think so. High-profile and high priced buyouts > > of CommandPrompt and EnterpriseDB would be great for > > postgresql. > > > > It would be a strong motivation for entrepreneurs to start > > postgresql companies, developers to build postgresql expertise, > > VCs to invest in postgresql companies. And guys like Pervasive > > would be kicking themselves for not keeping sticking with it. > > One would think that with the acquisiton of Berkeley DB and InnoDB > one should see a flourish of database engine startups, but I seem > to have missed that. > > My point is, its not about throwing money at a problem. PostgreSQL > seems to be having right people at the right place and benefits from > it. They do the hard work, they do it well, hence 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 and > upcoming 8.3 release. If you buy these people out, it will take time > to find and teach new ones. Writing RDBMS is not dusting crops, > ya know. ;))) Having contributors bought out was always one of our three risks, the other two being patent and trademark attacks. Not sure what we can really do about them. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
"Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42@gmail.com> writes:
> My point is, its not about throwing money at a problem. PostgreSQL
> seems to be having right people at the right place and benefits from
> it. They do the hard work, they do it well, hence 8.0, 8.1, 8.2 and
> upcoming 8.3 release. If you buy these people out, it will take time
> to find and teach new ones. Writing RDBMS is not dusting crops,
> ya know. ;)))
Buying out a company wouldn't affect dedicated people; they'd find a job
somewhere else and keep right at it. Companies have disappeared on us
before (Great Bridge, Pervasive) and the project is still here.
I think one significant difference between us and MySQL is that that
project probably *could* be killed by acquiring and shutting down one
company.
regards, tom lane
Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > to find and teach new ones. Writing RDBMS is not dusting crops, > ya know. ;))) > > Regards, > Dawid Love the Star Wars reference !! Patrick (thinking about breaking out the old Laserdisk of the ORIGINAL movie)
Bruce, > Having contributors bought out was always one of our three risks, the > other two being patent and trademark attacks. Not sure what we can > really do about them. Actually, the potential for trademark attacks is minimal to nonexistant according to the attorney's report. So I'm not worrying about it. Patent attacks are no more a risk for us than they are for every other OSS project, and the answer for these is to support the anti-patent organizations. Overall, I think we're in a good position in that there are a lot of attacks which could *hurt* PostgreSQL, but none which are a guarenteed kill, and the public knowledge of an attack could easily cause our users and enemies of the attacker, and the OSS legal community, to rally to our defense and support. This makes any attack a risky proposition for the attacker. Our #1 best defense is to make sure that as many companies as possible have invested in making PostgreSQL an integral part of their infrastructure and/or product line. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco