Thread: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] What can we learn from MySQL?

Andrew Payne wrote:
> > My concern about a single company, as all of us are, is that we kill the
> > community that created the software, which then burdens the single
> > company to steer development, leading to disaster.
>
> Understood, and that's the potential catch-22.  This is the problem with
> capital:  no smart investor is going to fund a company to promote and
> support an project like Postgres if there's nothing to prevent 5 other
> investors and teams from doing the exact same thing.  There MAY be a way to
> form something that's supportive and respectful of the community, and I
> think it's worth trying to figure that out.
>
> Bottom line:  the Postgres project is at a stage where the non-technical
> factors (marketing, partnerships) are at least as important as the technical
> ones.  Postgres may "lose" because of lacking technology (such as win32
> support, though coming soon), but will not necessarily "win" with the best
> technology.

Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community
development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that
risks that just to "win", as you say.  If we had gone in this direction
with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it
might not be what it is today.

--
  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 wrote:

> Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community
> development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that
> risks that just to "win", as you say.  If we had gone in this direction
> with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it
> might not be what it is today.

The "direction" I think I'm suggesting is actually not all that different
from Great Bridge.  And to your point, Great Bridge failed yet Postgres
still thrived.

The difference is that you could now correct for Great Bridge's problems,
which include but are not limited to:  timing (4 years has changed a lot for
commercial acceptance of open source), funding ($25m was too much), and
strategy (this is not an quick attempt to copy Red Hat).

I think such a project, with the right parameters, is very fundable.  If
anyone wants to talk about that, you should drop me an email off-list; we're
probably stepping out of topic for the hacker and advocacy lists.

-andy

>
> The difference is that you could now correct for Great Bridge's problems,
> which include but are not limited to:  timing (4 years has changed a lot for
> commercial acceptance of open source), funding ($25m was too much), and
> strategy (this is not an quick attempt to copy Red Hat).
>
> I think such a project, with the right parameters, is very fundable.  If
> anyone wants to talk about that, you should drop me an email off-list; we're
> probably stepping out of topic for the hacker and advocacy lists.

Why would someone fund a "new" PostgreSQL project when there are several
viable commercial entities doing the job right now?

J



>
> -andy
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Joshua wrote:

> Why would someone fund a "new" PostgreSQL project when there are several
> viable commercial entities doing the job right now?

Four words:  "size of marketing budget".

As a technology guy, it bugs me to acknowledge that.  But having lived
through this a few times, it is the way it works.

-andy