Thread: trash talk
In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache, http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp eWeek says: "The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will explode when the open-source community gets its hand on the code, but just because a product goes open source doesn't mean it will succeed, as can be witnessed by the failure of the PostgreSQL database to thrive under this model." It's amazing how much list activity there is for this "dead" database! ;-) - DAP ====================================================== David Parker Tazz Networks (401) 709-5130
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:30, David Parker wrote: > In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache, > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp > > eWeek says: > > "The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM > developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will > explode when the open-source community gets its hand on the code, but > just because a product goes open source doesn't mean it will succeed, as > can be witnessed by the failure of the PostgreSQL database to thrive > under this model." > > It's amazing how much list activity there is for this "dead" database! > ;-) That's because he's a marketeer, not a developer or a sysadmin. He only understands market-speak. For him, thrive == grow visible market share, make me some money, let me buy myself an expensive bottle of wine. For us, thrive == grow user base, developer base, code base, knowledge base, let me buy a you a pizza. I.e. the people who use postgresql mostly love, the people who don't mostly haven't heard of it. No buzz, no hype. For people who rely on PostgreSQL to get the job done, this is not a disadvantage.
> That's because he's a marketeer, not a developer or a sysadmin. He only > understands market-speak. No, I think he fully understands the relative position of PostgreSQL and its level of use. Think about it, why did he choose to disrespect this one particular open-source database out of all the ones available? Because in the context of that interview he could only squeeze in one such derogatory comment, and you can be sure he chose his target carefully. When somebody that highly placed in that large of an organization gives an interview, he doesn't usually make careless unplanned comments. I feel good that PostgreSQL has gotten so much attention from IBM--it's a real sign of accomplishment ;-) -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 665-7007 voice
Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 13:30, David Parker wrote: > > In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache, > > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp > > > > eWeek says: > > > > "The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM > > developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will > > explode when the open-source community gets its hand on the code, but > > just because a product goes open source doesn't mean it will succeed, as > > can be witnessed by the failure of the PostgreSQL database to thrive > > under this model." > > > > It's amazing how much list activity there is for this "dead" database! > > ;-) > > That's because he's a marketeer, not a developer or a sysadmin. He only > understands market-speak. > > For him, thrive == grow visible market share, make me some money, let me > buy myself an expensive bottle of wine. > For us, thrive == grow user base, developer base, code base, knowledge > base, let me buy a you a pizza. > > I.e. the people who use postgresql mostly love, the people who don't > mostly haven't heard of it. No buzz, no hype. For people who rely on > PostgreSQL to get the job done, this is not a disadvantage. I think he meant to say SAPDB. -- 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
Scott Ribe wrote: >>That's because he's a marketeer, not a developer or a sysadmin. He only >>understands market-speak. > > > No, I think he fully understands the relative position of PostgreSQL and its > level of use. Think about it, why did he choose to disrespect this one > particular open-source database out of all the ones available? Because in > the context of that interview he could only squeeze in one such derogatory > comment, and you can be sure he chose his target carefully. When somebody > that highly placed in that large of an organization gives an interview, he > doesn't usually make careless unplanned comments. > > I feel good that PostgreSQL has gotten so much attention from IBM--it's a > real sign of accomplishment ;-) I could be reading it incorrectly, but the paragraph was outside any attributed quote: --- The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will explode when the open-source community gets its hand on the code, but just because a product goes open source doesn't mean it will succeed, as can be witnessed by the failure of the PostgreSQL database to thrive under this model. --- Therefore, the author, Lisa Vass, could well have formulated this assertion of failure from the deep inner recesses of her own mind. I also find the other mention of PostgreSQL, which was an attributable quote, odd: --- Rivot agreed. "Some of the other ones [such as PostgreSQL], they've thrown it over the wall to see where it sticks," Rivot said. "In this case, there is a groundswell [of support], and that caused us to look and pay attention to it. The usage will continue to grow." --- What's the point of the square-brackets? Hmm... Mike Mascari > >
> I could be reading it incorrectly, but the paragraph was outside any > attributed quote: You are correct that the specific comment about pg not thriving was outside any quotes. However, given the totality of the references to pg I think it was a summary of some things Rivot said. As for the point of the square brackets, those are an editorial device to clarify a quote based on the omitted context. In other words, for this example they mean that Rivot was discussing PostgreSQL and that would have been made clear had they provided a complete transcript. Of course it is possible that the author misquoted Rivot, or misinterpreted which database he was referring to. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 665-7007 voice
The problem is that postgres has failed to thrive as a web based back end database. Ever heard of the LAMP soluton? Linux + Apache + Mysql + Php. Its unfortunate, but real. Its easy to find hosting with Mysql db, its not as easy (although getting more common I think) to find hosting with Postgres db. Having used (still using) both Postgres and Mysql, without a doubt Postgres is superior to Mysql, and probably used more for back end systems then for web based db. Mysql is used for many web site probably because Mysql is "sufficient" for what most web sites need. Terry Fielder Manager Software Development and Deployment Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes terry@greatgulfhomes.com Fax: (416) 441-9085 > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of David Parker > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:30 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: [GENERAL] trash talk > > > In an article about IBM's releasing Cloudscape to Apache, > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630856,00.asp > > eWeek says: > > "The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM > developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will > explode when the open-source community gets its hand on the code, but > just because a product goes open source doesn't mean it will > succeed, as > can be witnessed by the failure of the PostgreSQL database to thrive > under this model." > > It's amazing how much list activity there is for this "dead" database! > ;-) > > - DAP > ====================================================== > David Parker Tazz Networks (401) 709-5130 > > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to > majordomo@postgresql.org) >
Attachment
Interesting, IBM is saying that the code is worth 85M dollars! On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 00:19, Scott Ribe wrote: > > I could be reading it incorrectly, but the paragraph was outside any > > attributed quote: > > You are correct that the specific comment about pg not thriving was outside > any quotes. However, given the totality of the references to pg I think it > was a summary of some things Rivot said. As for the point of the square > brackets, those are an editorial device to clarify a quote based on the > omitted context. In other words, for this example they mean that Rivot was > discussing PostgreSQL and that would have been made clear had they provided > a complete transcript. > > Of course it is possible that the author misquoted Rivot, or misinterpreted > which database he was referring to. -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 14675561
> Interesting, IBM is saying that the code is worth 85M dollars! Well... Actually they're saying: "we paid $85M for it, now we're giving it away, aren't we generous?" -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 665-7007 voice
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 09:01, Scott Ribe wrote: > > Interesting, IBM is saying that the code is worth 85M dollars! > > Well... Actually they're saying: "we paid $85M for it, now we're giving it > away, aren't we generous?" Hey guys, after reading the article, I began a dialog with Lisa Vaas, the author, and we had quite a civil discourse over it. It would seem that she, like many others, WAS under the mistaken apprehension that PostgreSQL inc pretty much was THE company behind PostgreSQL, and that PostgreSQL was built on the same basic business model as MySQL is. I republish a fair bit of our dialog here: ----------------------------------- FIRST EMAIL FROM ME: From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe@qwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:10 AM To: Vaas, Lisa Subject: recent article on IBM Java database Hi Lisa, I have a question. In a recent article on eweek, there's a paragraph I will now quote: BLOCKQUOTE The developer community for Cloudscape now consists of about 80 IBM developers, Rivot said. IBM of course anticipates that population will explode when the open-source community gets its hand on the code, but just because a product goes open source doesn't mean it will succeed, as can be witnessed by the failure of the PostgreSQL database to thrive under this model. /BLOCKQUOTE That last bit about PostgreSQL. I have some issues with it. 1: Did Rivot say it or did you write it, hence think it? 2: It is completely incorrect. PostgreSQL once had a few major companies behind it. One of them, GreatBridge, spent their budget liberally on PR saying how they were gonna go all the way etc... And soon disappeared. Several other companies, PostgreSQL inc., SRA associates in Japan, RedHat, Command Prompt, Fujitsu, and another half dozen or so, still support active work on that database. The new version, due out in beta this week, adds Point in Time Recovery, Table spaces, savepoints, very efficient buffer management, improved background writer, and a Windows 32 port. Many of these features were paid for by commercial concerns who wanted the features added and paid for them. This is less than a year after the last major release, 7.3.0 by the way. You can read this list for yourself here: http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/release.html#RELEASE-7-5 Oh, and when you go there, the IP address for developer.postgresql.org, like all addresses ending in .org, will be served by a PostgreSQL database. Just like the .info domain. Ask IBM how many tlds they provide database services for with any of their databases. This isn't a flame, I'm not mad, but I am amazed at how woefully underinformed the average tech press is about PostgreSQL. It's like it's a stealth project that never gets noticed. Which goes with the system administrators mantra "When you do your job right, people won't be sure you did anything at all." (OK, I stole that from Futurama) Thanks for your attention. It was good story about an interesting type of database, the kind I'd use in a Palm pilot or something. I'll have to go play with it now. END FIRST EMAIL ----------------------------------------- Lisa's response: Hi Scott, Thanks for the feedback. When analysts talk about failures to thrive under an open-source model, PostgreSQL is one of the main products they think of. I threw PostgreSQL out as a suggested example, based on what I've heard plenty of industry sources say, and Rivot agreed. My impression is that people point to PostgreSQL's failure not in terms of technological shortcomings, but rather in commercial terms or, more specificly, in terms of mindshare/marketshare. I know scads of people running PostgreSQL who speak very highly of it feature/function-wise. But for whatever reasons, whether it's mismanagement on the part of the company or complexities having to do with licensing, it doesn't come close to where MySQL is at in terms of market share/mindshare. I should have been more clear, and I apologize for that. I'm sure I'm going to hear from a lot of PostgreSQL users on this one! At any rate, good luck with Cloudscape/Derby. Please don't hesitate to let me know what you do with it and what you think of it. All my best, Lisa ----------------------------------------- My response: > But for whatever reasons, whether it's mismanagement on the part of the > company or complexities having to do with licensing, it doesn't come > close to where MySQL is at in terms of market share/mindshare. That one line kind of points out what I think is your basic misunderstanding of the PostgreSQL development model. PostgreSQL is much more akin to apache than it is MySQL in terms of development. The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not a company, but a group of core developers, each sponsored by a different company, and autonomous in their actions in support of PostgreSQL. In MySQL, one company acts as the clearing house for input from both the company's and volunteer developer's efforts. What goes in is decided by that company, and how MySQL is marketed is decided by that company. Therefore, a single, strong commercial entity is making all decisions about the future of the product. PostgreSQL, like apache, is beholden to no company. Several companies each hire postgresql developers as needed, either to accomplish a single project, or to do ongoing development, then the output of those programmers efforts are funneled into the PGDG core group who decide what does or doesn't go in. No company in charge, just like the apache foundation. So, no single entity can say "implement XYZ" even if it's a bad idea. The PGDG core group must approve it, and they make that decision based soley on the merit of XYZ. I think the foundation oriented open source projects will eventually be responsible for all major infrastructure type projects, i.e. those that are ubiquitous, unseen, and just work. Projects like the linux kernel, the apache server, postgresql, openldap for instance. The commercial "ride along" of companies like MySQL is only necessary should that product still be fighting for dominance against closed source equivalents or poorly performing open source equivalents. Once the non-commercial, developer controlled open source program(s) in a given niche achieve(s) dominance, commercial entities are really no longer needed for just that one product, but instead, commercial entities will combine such programs into larger distributions (i.e. RedHat, et. al.) and provide easier interfaces to them, and better documentation as their value add. RedHat already pretty much does this, and for the cost of one highly regarded PostgreSQL developer, they get years of computer expertise to help guide them in their database strategy. So, while no companies are making a killing off of licensing PostgreSQL, they are making money off of including it with dozens and dozens of other commodity programs. I think it quite likely that one day IBM's DB2 team, Oracle, MySQL, and several other database vendors will wake up to a wholesale migration towards the truly free databases like PostgreSQL and FirebirdSQL, because they will be "good enough" and free. > I should have been more clear, and I apologize for that. I'm sure I'm > going to hear from a lot of PostgreSQL users on this one! At any rate, > good luck with Cloudscape/Derby. Please don't hesitate to let me know > what you do with it and what you think of it. The nice thing about PostgreSQL users in general is how nice they tend to be. Vocal and loyal yes, but even flame wars in the mailing lists are quite polite. Thanks for your attention, and have a great weekend. Scott Marlowe --------------------------------------------- Lisa's reply: Scott, You're right, I didn't understand that. I appreciate the explanation. It is markedly different from other companies in its structure. I always contact Geoff Davidson, CEO of PostgreSQL Inc., with the understanding that there basically was a somewhat standard company-like structure behind the technology. I can see that I assumed wrong, and I'll proceed differently in my reporting on the company henceforth. At the very least, I'll get people to explain more fully their dismissal of PostgreSQL so I understand how it's perceived, and I'll try to correct my own perception. Thanks again, and thanks of course for the level of refreshingly civil discourse that is characteristic of the PostgreSQL community. All my best, Lisa ----------------------------- End of discourse. I got Lisa's permission to post her replies before posting them here. I provide them as an example of how to properly approach a journalist (i.e. no flaming, no screeching, assuming they mean the best and have made a simple mistake based on misunderstanding, etc etc...)
"Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net> writes: > This is less than a year after the last major release, 7.3.0 by the way. Uhm. Wasn't 7.4 the last major release? -- greg
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 12:06, Greg Stark wrote: > "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net> writes: > > > This is less than a year after the last major release, 7.3.0 by the way. > > Uhm. Wasn't 7.4 the last major release? Yeah, that was a typo. Thanks for the catch.
Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 09:01, Scott Ribe wrote: > >>> Interesting, IBM is saying that the code is worth 85M >>> dollars! >> >> Well... Actually they're saying: "we paid $85M for it, now >> we're giving it away, aren't we generous?" > > > Hey guys, after reading the article, I began a dialog with Lisa > Vaas, the author, and we had quite a civil discourse over it. Her continued use of the phrase "the company" still makes me think she doesn't understand (asterisks added by me): "You're right, I didn't understand that. I appreciate the explanation. *It* is markedly different from *other companies* in *its* structure. I always contact Geoff Davidson, CEO of PostgreSQL Inc., with the understanding that there basically was a somewhat standard company-like structure behind the technology. I can see that I assumed wrong, and I'll proceed differently in my reporting on *the company* henceforth. At the very least, I'll get people to explain more fully their dismissal of PostgreSQL so I understand how it's perceived, and I'll try to correct my own perception. Thanks again, and thanks of course for the level of refreshingly civil discourse that is characteristic of the PostgreSQL community. All my best, Lisa" Oh, well. Mike Mascari