Thread: Companies involved in development
I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge benefit for the 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, Pennsylvania19073
I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the other hand a better product makes even more developers work for PostgreSQL. We were thinking of funding the project as well and seems to be a good way of improving the product we make our living of. We have also tried to get some government funding we could invest into PostgreSQL but unfornately all we could get was EUR 10k which is some kind of ridiculous. We should have invested much more but it is just not possible at this point so we dropped the idea. For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just optimal and it is an interesting subject. Talking about practical experience: Our customers love PostgreSQL. The only thing they miss is 24x7 availability due to a lack of hot-failover and replication. A way to tweak the optimizer better (some have SQL statements being 2 pages long). We have done quite a lot of Oracle up to now but in many respects PostgreSQL seems to be the better product but in the case of availability we fail. The database never crashes but it is just to hard to make a cluster out of it - we have to do it on an application level and too many people worry about conistency if one node fails. Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website where people can post that they need money to implement something really useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or things like that if they knew more. By the way; many people seem to think that PostgreSQL is GPL license. I know it is easy to find out what it means and that it is now that way but we should explain what BSD license REALLY means in just a few words. This may sound ridiculous but people just don't look for information. All in all I think that there are ways to find people contributing financially to the project. Regards, Hans-Jürgen Schönig Bruce Momjian wrote: >I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on >PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. >I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. >We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the >development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge >benefit for the community. > > -- *Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig* Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75 www.postgresql.at <http://www.postgresql.at>, cluster.postgresql.at <http://cluster.postgresql.at>, www.cybertec.at <http://www.cybertec.at>, kernel.cybertec.at <http://kernel.cybertec.at>
I will add something about the BSD license to the advocacy web page I am
trying to put together. My list is:
P O S T G R E S Q L A D V O C A C Y
Current at ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/advocacy.
Quotations
Company users
Beef up developers list, add companies
success stories
update developers map
BSD license
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans-J�rgen Sch�nig wrote:
> I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more
> company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features
> people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the
> other hand a better product makes even more developers work for
> PostgreSQL. We were thinking of funding the project as well and seems to
> be a good way of improving the product we make our living of. We have
> also tried to get some government funding we could invest into
> PostgreSQL but unfornately all we could get was EUR 10k which is some
> kind of ridiculous. We should have invested much more but it is just not
> possible at this point so we dropped the idea.
> For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest
> because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor
> things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real
> enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just
> optimal and it is an interesting subject.
> Talking about practical experience: Our customers love PostgreSQL. The
> only thing they miss is 24x7 availability due to a lack of hot-failover
> and replication. A way to tweak the optimizer better (some have SQL
> statements being 2 pages long).
> We have done quite a lot of Oracle up to now but in many respects
> PostgreSQL seems to be the better product but in the case of
> availability we fail. The database never crashes but it is just to hard
> to make a cluster out of it - we have to do it on an application level
> and too many people worry about conistency if one node fails.
>
> Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website
> where people can post that they need money to implement something really
> useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or
> things like that if they knew more.
> By the way; many people seem to think that PostgreSQL is GPL license. I
> know it is easy to find out what it means and that it is now that way
> but we should explain what BSD license REALLY means in just a few words.
> This may sound ridiculous but people just don't look for information.
>
> All in all I think that there are ways to find people contributing
> financially to the project.
>
> Regards,
> Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on
> >PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming.
> >I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility.
> >We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the
> >development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge
> >benefit for the community.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig*
> Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
> Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75
> www.postgresql.at <http://www.postgresql.at>, cluster.postgresql.at
> <http://cluster.postgresql.at>, www.cybertec.at
> <http://www.cybertec.at>, kernel.cybertec.at <http://kernel.cybertec.at>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
I think I spelled -advocacy correctly this time.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote:
> I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more
> company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features
> people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the
> For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest
> because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor
> things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real
> enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just
> optimal and it is an interesting subject.
> Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website
> where people can post that they need money to implement something really
> useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or
> things like that if they knew more.
Some time ago, I posted that I was looking for people interested in
making the replication stuff complete. I'm still working on that
(and I _may_ be getting somewhere, BTW), but there is a lot of work
to be done there, and I think quite a bit of high-quality code needs
to be written. And that high-quiality code requires high-quality
developers.
Now, it strikes me that sometimes, several companies might be able to
afford to subsidise this sort of development, if only they had a way
of getting together to do this. I find that the corporate folks here
really like the idea of "co-development". The idea is to spread the
risk, where everyone gets the return. Can anyone think of an idea of
how to set up some sort of organisation to do this? Or maybe, are
commercial organisations like PostgreSQL the best answer? The
problem is frequently that the names of the funders frequently need
to remain secret-ish, because a lot of companies are reluctant to
discuss using Postgres.
Any suggestions? I know I'd have an easier sell to support this sort
of development if we didn't have to foot the whole bill.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
I am willing to talk to anyone about this. There is a reason my phone number is in my signature (note new phone number; I just moved.) Also, I am willing to make trips to companies to talk about PostgreSQL. I can't make 100's of trips a year, but I try to do at least on a month. I just did one last week. If your company is interested in funding or a visit to talk about PostgreSQL, I am ready. Also, for the advocacy site, I will be putting together a list of people around the world who are ready to talk via phone or visit about PostgreSQL. I am a little bogged down on the pre-beta issue, but plan to hit this full force once beta begins. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I think I spelled -advocacy correctly this time. > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > > I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more > > company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features > > people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the > > > For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest > > because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor > > things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real > > enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just > > optimal and it is an interesting subject. > > > Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website > > where people can post that they need money to implement something really > > useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or > > things like that if they knew more. > > Some time ago, I posted that I was looking for people interested in > making the replication stuff complete. I'm still working on that > (and I _may_ be getting somewhere, BTW), but there is a lot of work > to be done there, and I think quite a bit of high-quality code needs > to be written. And that high-quiality code requires high-quality > developers. > > Now, it strikes me that sometimes, several companies might be able to > afford to subsidise this sort of development, if only they had a way > of getting together to do this. I find that the corporate folks here > really like the idea of "co-development". The idea is to spread the > risk, where everyone gets the return. Can anyone think of an idea of > how to set up some sort of organisation to do this? Or maybe, are > commercial organisations like PostgreSQL the best answer? The > problem is frequently that the names of the funders frequently need > to remain secret-ish, because a lot of companies are reluctant to > discuss using Postgres. > > Any suggestions? I know I'd have an easier sell to support this sort > of development if we didn't have to foot the whole bill. > > A > > -- > ---- > Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue > Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada > <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 > +1 416 646 3304 x110 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- 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
Of course, any funding information would be shared by the core group so they are involved, but not shared to the general list until the company wishes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I think I spelled -advocacy correctly this time. > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > > I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more > > company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features > > people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the > > > For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest > > because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor > > things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real > > enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just > > optimal and it is an interesting subject. > > > Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website > > where people can post that they need money to implement something really > > useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or > > things like that if they knew more. > > Some time ago, I posted that I was looking for people interested in > making the replication stuff complete. I'm still working on that > (and I _may_ be getting somewhere, BTW), but there is a lot of work > to be done there, and I think quite a bit of high-quality code needs > to be written. And that high-quiality code requires high-quality > developers. > > Now, it strikes me that sometimes, several companies might be able to > afford to subsidise this sort of development, if only they had a way > of getting together to do this. I find that the corporate folks here > really like the idea of "co-development". The idea is to spread the > risk, where everyone gets the return. Can anyone think of an idea of > how to set up some sort of organisation to do this? Or maybe, are > commercial organisations like PostgreSQL the best answer? The > problem is frequently that the names of the funders frequently need > to remain secret-ish, because a lot of companies are reluctant to > discuss using Postgres. > > Any suggestions? I know I'd have an easier sell to support this sort > of development if we didn't have to foot the whole bill. > > A > > -- > ---- > Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue > Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada > <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 > +1 416 646 3304 x110 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- 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, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > benefit for the community. I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha companies, is not. Just recently, one of the GnuE developers has been running on about SapDB, and mentioned how they've got '100 paid developers at SAP' and seemed to think that since GreatBridge died, pgsql is back to all volunteer. The fact that GB wasn't the first nor the only nor the last corp. funding pgsql development was clearly missed, even among a relatively PG savvy user community (GnuE is the GNU/Enterprise middleware system, and is is pgsql as its primary developement backend http://www.gnuenterprise.org/ ) Ross
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 17:13, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > > benefit for the community. > > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha > companies, is not. > At a minimum we could have people attach a company name to their developer bios (http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php) if their company pays them to hack on postgresql. (at the developers discretion of course) At the least I would think companies like postgresql inc would benefit from publicity that "we employee X number of pg developers." We could also generate a list of companies sponsoring postgresql development, but we'd have to come up with some criterion as to what it means to be a sponsors. For example, a coworker and I were discussing a patch he is getting ready to submit this morning while we were "on the clock". While our company doesn't have an issue with this, I don't know that I would say they sponsor postgresql development, they just happen to employ two guys who are more involved than most and will hack code if it scratches our particular itch. Robert Treat
I think I spelled -advocacy correctly this time.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote:
> I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more
> company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features
> people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the
> For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest
> because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor
> things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real
> enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just
> optimal and it is an interesting subject.
> Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website
> where people can post that they need money to implement something really
> useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or
> things like that if they knew more.
Some time ago, I posted that I was looking for people interested in
making the replication stuff complete. I'm still working on that
(and I _may_ be getting somewhere, BTW), but there is a lot of work
to be done there, and I think quite a bit of high-quality code needs
to be written. And that high-quiality code requires high-quality
developers.
Now, it strikes me that sometimes, several companies might be able to
afford to subsidise this sort of development, if only they had a way
of getting together to do this. I find that the corporate folks here
really like the idea of "co-development". The idea is to spread the
risk, where everyone gets the return. Can anyone think of an idea of
how to set up some sort of organisation to do this? Or maybe, are
commercial organisations like PostgreSQL the best answer? The
problem is frequently that the names of the funders frequently need
to remain secret-ish, because a lot of companies are reluctant to
discuss using Postgres.
Any suggestions? I know I'd have an easier sell to support this sort
of development if we didn't have to foot the whole bill.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
I am willing to talk to anyone about this. There is a reason my phone number is in my signature (note new phone number; I just moved.) Also, I am willing to make trips to companies to talk about PostgreSQL. I can't make 100's of trips a year, but I try to do at least on a month. I just did one last week. If your company is interested in funding or a visit to talk about PostgreSQL, I am ready. Also, for the advocacy site, I will be putting together a list of people around the world who are ready to talk via phone or visit about PostgreSQL. I am a little bogged down on the pre-beta issue, but plan to hit this full force once beta begins. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I think I spelled -advocacy correctly this time. > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > > I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more > > company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features > > people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the > > > For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest > > because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor > > things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real > > enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just > > optimal and it is an interesting subject. > > > Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website > > where people can post that they need money to implement something really > > useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or > > things like that if they knew more. > > Some time ago, I posted that I was looking for people interested in > making the replication stuff complete. I'm still working on that > (and I _may_ be getting somewhere, BTW), but there is a lot of work > to be done there, and I think quite a bit of high-quality code needs > to be written. And that high-quiality code requires high-quality > developers. > > Now, it strikes me that sometimes, several companies might be able to > afford to subsidise this sort of development, if only they had a way > of getting together to do this. I find that the corporate folks here > really like the idea of "co-development". The idea is to spread the > risk, where everyone gets the return. Can anyone think of an idea of > how to set up some sort of organisation to do this? Or maybe, are > commercial organisations like PostgreSQL the best answer? The > problem is frequently that the names of the funders frequently need > to remain secret-ish, because a lot of companies are reluctant to > discuss using Postgres. > > Any suggestions? I know I'd have an easier sell to support this sort > of development if we didn't have to foot the whole bill. > > A > > -- > ---- > Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue > Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada > <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 > +1 416 646 3304 x110 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- 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
Of course, any funding information would be shared by the core group so they are involved, but not shared to the general list until the company wishes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I think I spelled -advocacy correctly this time. > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig wrote: > > I think it would be a huge benefit for the community to have some more > > company-funding. This would lead to the implementation of some features > > people need urgently (replication in the core and so forth). On the > > > For a company PostgreSQL definitely is an interesting area to invest > > because it has proven to be a good product and there are just minor > > things (sync. replication - eg. Postgres-R) missing to make it a real > > enterprise database. The support of the community of more than just > > optimal and it is an interesting subject. > > > Also: It would be interesting to have a special section on the website > > where people can post that they need money to implement something really > > useful. I guess there'd be a lot of people who'd pay for replication or > > things like that if they knew more. > > Some time ago, I posted that I was looking for people interested in > making the replication stuff complete. I'm still working on that > (and I _may_ be getting somewhere, BTW), but there is a lot of work > to be done there, and I think quite a bit of high-quality code needs > to be written. And that high-quiality code requires high-quality > developers. > > Now, it strikes me that sometimes, several companies might be able to > afford to subsidise this sort of development, if only they had a way > of getting together to do this. I find that the corporate folks here > really like the idea of "co-development". The idea is to spread the > risk, where everyone gets the return. Can anyone think of an idea of > how to set up some sort of organisation to do this? Or maybe, are > commercial organisations like PostgreSQL the best answer? The > problem is frequently that the names of the funders frequently need > to remain secret-ish, because a lot of companies are reluctant to > discuss using Postgres. > > Any suggestions? I know I'd have an easier sell to support this sort > of development if we didn't have to foot the whole bill. > > A > > -- > ---- > Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue > Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada > <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 > +1 416 646 3304 x110 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- 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, 2002-08-15 at 17:13, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > > > benefit for the community. > > > > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you > > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha > > companies, is not. > > > > At a minimum we could have people attach a company name to their > developer bios (http://developer.postgresql.org/bios.php) if their > company pays them to hack on postgresql. (at the developers discretion > of course) At the least I would think companies like postgresql inc > would benefit from publicity that "we employee X number of pg > developers." > > We could also generate a list of companies sponsoring postgresql > development, but we'd have to come up with some criterion as to what it > means to be a sponsors. For example, a coworker and I were discussing a > patch he is getting ready to submit this morning while we were "on the > clock". While our company doesn't have an issue with this, I don't know > that I would say they sponsor postgresql development, they just happen > to employ two guys who are more involved than most and will hack code if > it scratches our particular itch. Yea, that is a tough one, but anyone who is submitting patches regularly and does _some_ work on company time is eligible, I think. -- 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
Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:05:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I think we are going to see more company-funded developers working on > > PostgreSQL. There are a handful now, but I can see lots more coming. > > I am going to work on getting those funding companies more visibility. > > We originally were concerned that such involvement may harm the > > development process, but history has shown that it has only been a huge > > benefit for the community. > > I agree, and it's also true that while the visibility of all you > paid-to-hack types is high, the fact that you _are_ paid, and by wha > companies, is not. > > Just recently, one of the GnuE developers has been running on about SapDB, > and mentioned how they've got '100 paid developers at SAP' and seemed to > think that since GreatBridge died, pgsql is back to all volunteer. The > fact that GB wasn't the first nor the only nor the last corp. funding > pgsql development was clearly missed, even among a relatively PG savvy > user community (GnuE is the GNU/Enterprise middleware system, and is is > pgsql as its primary developement backend http://www.gnuenterprise.org/ ) Yes, it is very invisible now. -- 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, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am willing to talk to anyone about this. There is a reason my phone
> number is in my signature (note new phone number; I just moved.)
>
> Also, I am willing to make trips to companies to talk about
> PostgreSQL.
> I can't make 100's of trips a year, but I try to do at least
> on a month.
> I just did one last week. If your company is interested in
> funding or a
> visit to talk about PostgreSQL, I am ready. Also, for the advocacy
> site, I will be putting together a list of people around the world who
> are ready to talk via phone or visit about PostgreSQL.
>
> I am a little bogged down on the pre-beta issue, but plan to hit this
> full force once beta begins.
I have the feeling that PostgreSQL needs a bit more of a PR effort. I
started thinking about this some time ago and then I asked Bruce why
Great Bridge failed. Then he started this thread. But I think the issue
is bigger.
When we started using PostgreSQL we tried to find success stories and
study cases. There were almost none. If you go to the MySQL web site -
the study cases are there. I find it crucial for new users - especially
corporations - to read study cases before taking a decision.
Decisions in big corporations are taken my managers and managers need
more than just technical assurance that this works. Managers study MBA
and MBA is one year reading day and night about what other companies did
right or wrong.
Developers tend not to like managers, but that's the wrong way. Both can
not do without the other. Instead of trying to work without 'them' it is
better to see how to work with them.
If PostgreSQL has a management oriented section - the developers who
want to implement PostgreSQL will have better food to feed their
managers. This will improve the climate a lot.
I see this effort by starting collecting and writing high quality study
cases - who uses it, why do they use it, how did they started using it,
what were the pros and cons, how did it go, etc. There are not much
technical details in that. But a lot a manager needs in order to take a
decision.
Iavor
--
Iavor Raytchev
very small technologies (a company of CEE Solutions)
in case of emergency -
call: + 43 676 639 46 49
or write to: support@verysmall.org
www.verysmall.org
I think the areas are at least two - - funding - who funds it and areas that need funding - PR - what I described in my previous mail These are pretty separated. Iavor