Thread: [pgsql-advocacy] Has anyone seen this marketing gimmick? EnterpriseDB vs MySQL vs MariaDB

http://go.mariadb.com/GLBL-WBN_2017-09-19CageMatchIntegratedCampaign_RegistrationLP.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid-social&utm_campaign=2017-cage-match-webinar-boost

This is tomorrow, if you are on US time.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 2017-09-11 21:39, Joshua Kramer wrote:
>
http://go.mariadb.com/GLBL-WBN_2017-09-19CageMatchIntegratedCampaign_RegistrationLP.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid-social&utm_campaign=2017-cage-match-webinar-boost
> 
> This is tomorrow, if you are on US time.


Looks like it is next Tuesday.

It's presented by the "Senior Director of Product Marketing" for
MariaDB. What do you expect him to do, give a true and unbiased
presentation about the benefits of the competition? Ha ha ha


-- Stephen


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 2017-09-11 7:19 PM, Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 2017-09-11 21:39, Joshua Kramer wrote:
>>
http://go.mariadb.com/GLBL-WBN_2017-09-19CageMatchIntegratedCampaign_RegistrationLP.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid-social&utm_campaign=2017-cage-match-webinar-boost
>>
>> This is tomorrow, if you are on US time.
>
> Looks like it is next Tuesday.
>
> It's presented by the "Senior Director of Product Marketing" for
> MariaDB. What do you expect him to do, give a true and unbiased
> presentation about the benefits of the competition? Ha ha ha

It could be worse.  They could decline to mention Postgres at all (just as they 
declined to mention several other open source DBMSs).  The fact that this talk 
is comparing with Postgres, the Postgres name is getting out there in front of 
more people, even if the presentation itself is biased against it.  Some people 
choosing to watch the presentation may actually use it as evidence to prefer 
Postgres for their needs. -- Darren Duncan



-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 12/09/17 14:19, Stephen Cook wrote:
> On 2017-09-11 21:39, Joshua Kramer wrote:
>>
http://go.mariadb.com/GLBL-WBN_2017-09-19CageMatchIntegratedCampaign_RegistrationLP.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid-social&utm_campaign=2017-cage-match-webinar-boost
>>
>> This is tomorrow, if you are on US time.
>
> Looks like it is next Tuesday.
>
> It's presented by the "Senior Director of Product Marketing" for
> MariaDB. What do you expect him to do, give a true and unbiased
> presentation about the benefits of the competition? Ha ha ha
>
>
> -- Stephen
>
>
I'd expect PostgreSQL to do well against MariaDB and Oracle in all 4 
categories listed at that URL.  Obviously EnterpriseDB is in demand and 
some companies value paying a premium for their services, but may be a 
bit pricey for some people - but I know that EnterpriseDB gives back to 
the community.

So apart from a senior executive of MariaDB presenting having an obvious 
bias, I suspect that the fact that he is not comparing to PostgreSQL: 
means that he will harp on about EnterpriseDB being expensive and not 
being as committed to Open Source as much as MariaDB (how valid that 
latter concern is, I have no idea - but I strongly suspect it will be 
painted worse than it is!).

My perception is that PostgreSQL (& EnterpriseDB) developers are more 
concerned with data integrity and standards than MariaDB - even at the 
expense of gimmicky innovations.  I started looking at PostgreSQL back 
in 2004, even then I found it better than MySQL in all categories I 
cared about - and I never understood why anyone would think that 
PostgreSQL was harder to use.

I hope some PostgreSQL & EnterpriseDB heavyweights will be there!


Cheers,
Gavin




-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

Looks interesting. I have at least registered to see what their angle will be...

--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

Darren, all,

* Darren Duncan (darren@darrenduncan.net) wrote:
> On 2017-09-11 7:19 PM, Stephen Cook wrote:
> >On 2017-09-11 21:39, Joshua Kramer wrote:
>
>>http://go.mariadb.com/GLBL-WBN_2017-09-19CageMatchIntegratedCampaign_RegistrationLP.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid-social&utm_campaign=2017-cage-match-webinar-boost
> >>
> >>This is tomorrow, if you are on US time.
> >
> >Looks like it is next Tuesday.
> >
> >It's presented by the "Senior Director of Product Marketing" for
> >MariaDB. What do you expect him to do, give a true and unbiased
> >presentation about the benefits of the competition? Ha ha ha
>
> It could be worse.  They could decline to mention Postgres at all
> (just as they declined to mention several other open source DBMSs).

Unfortunately, they aren't really talking about PG there, it would seem.

Or, if they are, they've completely misunderstood that PG is not one
company's product but rather an independent open source project which
has lots of companies contributing to it.

If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
starting to show my own bias.

Thanks!

Stephen

On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
> starting to show my own bias.

It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

Simon,

* Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> > If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
> > various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
> > company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
> > starting to show my own bias.
>
> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

I had been avoiding mentioning any specific compnay names; the point
being that there clearly was little research done by the folks that put
together this upcoming talk into who is doing what in the Postgres
space.

I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the
major players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one.  The
unfortunate reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big
company behind the open source project and few realize that PG has such
a great and diverse multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make
a point to bring it up whenever we get the chance.

What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.

Thanks!

Stephen

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 03:53:59 PM Jan Karremans wrote:
> Could it just be that they are scared of PostgreSQL and now single out EDB as a target for a specific market?

Keep in mind, all they're trying to do is sell themselves where all the arguments are targeted specifically for whom
theywish to address i.e. companies requiring technical support and find it cost effective to farm out 'consulting'
services.

-- 
Robert Bernier 




> 
> > On 12 sep. 2017, at 15:51, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>> wrote:
> > Simon,
> > 
> > * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:simon@2ndquadrant.com>) wrote:
> > > On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
> > > > various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
> > > > company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
> > > > starting to show my own bias.
> > >
> > > It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.
> > 
> > I had been avoiding mentioning any specific compnay names; the point
> > being that there clearly was little research done by the folks that put
> > together this upcoming talk into who is doing what in the Postgres
> > space.
> > 
> > I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the
> > major players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one.  The
> > unfortunate reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big
> > company behind the open source project and few realize that PG has such
> > a great and diverse multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make
> > a point to bring it up whenever we get the chance.
> > 
> > I agree with these points.  Of course a competitive overview by a competitor might be taking a different approach
forone or a number of other reasons.  For example if price is one thing they are covering, things would be different if
theyare covering the official version of the software. 
 
> > 
> > What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
> > to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
> > single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
> > Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.
> > 
> > 100% agreed on that point.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Stephen
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 



-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Simon,
>
> * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>>> starting to show my own bias.
>>
>> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.
>
> What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
> to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
> single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
> Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.

That’s the big takeaway.

Like a lot of “cage matches,” the outcome is predetermined for the audience, so I think it’s wasted energy to
overanalyzehow they are going to present PostgreSQL because we know it won’t be #1 from that context.  One big
advantagethe PostgreSQL community has is the fact it is decentralized and it is in the best interests of all the major
PostgreSQLcontributors to promote utilizing PostgreSQL.  A lot of this is happening organically too, as more people and
organizationsare adopting PostgreSQL than ever before thus creating a viral, self-fulfilling cycle. 

In short: we just need to keep building a superior product, provide best-in-class support, and let people know about
it.

Jonathan

--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 09/12/2017 06:51 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the
>> major players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one.  The
>> unfortunate reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big
>> company behind the open source project and few realize that PG has such
>> a great and diverse multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make
>> a point to bring it up whenever we get the chance.
>
> I agree with these points.  Of course a competitive overview by a
> competitor might be taking a different approach for one or a number of
> other reasons.  For example if price is one thing they are covering,
> things would be different if they are covering the official version of
> the software.

More to the point, they are not even true to their stated thesis:
 "world’s largest organizations are using strategic initiatives to  replace proprietary databases and expensive
licenseswith open source  databases and enterprise subscriptions" 

as the referenced version of postgres is a proprietary fork, not open
source.

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Simon,
>
> * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>
>> > If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>> > various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>> > company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>> > starting to show my own bias.
>>
>> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.
>
> I had been avoiding mentioning any specific compnay names; the point
> being that there clearly was little research done by the folks that put
> together this upcoming talk into who is doing what in the Postgres
> space.
>
> I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the
> major players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one.  The
> unfortunate reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big
> company behind the open source project and few realize that PG has such
> a great and diverse multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make
> a point to bring it up whenever we get the chance.
>
> What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
> to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
> single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
> Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.

This is what I always said in Russia, that our community is truly
independent hardcore open source community.  Is there any plan for
Postgres promotion at any major opensource conferences like Fosdem ?
We might submit a talk to main track and explain people the difference
(philosophical) between Postgres and MySQL/MariaDB, for example.

>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

Oleg,

* Oleg Bartunov (obartunov@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
> > to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
> > single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
> > Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.
>
> This is what I always said in Russia, that our community is truly
> independent hardcore open source community.  Is there any plan for
> Postgres promotion at any major opensource conferences like Fosdem ?

Promotion of PostgreSQL at FOSDEM, specifically, is handled by PgEU,
similar to how promotion at SCALE in the US is handled by PgUS.

> We might submit a talk to main track and explain people the difference
> (philosophical) between Postgres and MySQL/MariaDB, for example.

That's certainly an interesting idea and the FOSDEM PG room is nearly
always completely full, so you're likely to get a good audience for such
a talk, assuming it gets accepted.  We could try to do something similar
at SCALE too.

Thanks!

Stephen

On 09/12/2017 05:11 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Darren, all,

>> It could be worse.  They could decline to mention Postgres at all
>> (just as they declined to mention several other open source DBMSs).
> 
> Unfortunately, they aren't really talking about PG there, it would seem.

They aren't, they are talking about products of which PG is not.

> 
> Or, if they are, they've completely misunderstood that PG is not one
> company's product but rather an independent open source project which
> has lots of companies contributing to it.

The audience isn't FOSS developers, or FOSS community, it is companies. 
Companies (except in our very narrow view of the world) want products 
not projects.

It is pretty standard and it just shows how well EnterpriseDB has 
penetrated the commercial market. They are by far the number one name in 
the Postgres "product" space.

Thanks,

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 09/12/2017 06:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> 
>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>> starting to show my own bias.
> 
> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

Regardless of company, code contribution is only a single metric among 
an entire vat of grease that lubricates the wheel that turns this community.

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 09/12/2017 06:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>> starting to show my own bias.
>
> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

Regardless of company, code contribution is only a single metric among
an entire vat of grease that lubricates the wheel that turns this community.

JD


--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****


--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>> starting to show my own bias.
>
> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

Nope.  At the moment, the company that commits the most code to
PostgreSQL is whoever is of course Crunchy, because they employ Tom
Lane.  (I assume that's why Stephen is bringing the topic up.)
EnterpriseDB is second, because they employ me.  2ndQuadrant is third.
This is true whether you total by primary author or by who actually
committed the code.

http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2017/04/who-contributes-to-postgresql.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/67uk65/who_contributes_to_postgresql_development/dgtxnt6/

Granted, those statistics are only for 2016.  I'm sure it's been
different in years past and will be again in the future, but I'll bet
the top company has rarely been anything other than Tom Lane's current
employer.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Frost
> I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the major
> players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one.  The unfortunate
> reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big company behind
> the open source project and few realize that PG has such a great and diverse
> multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make a point to bring it
> up whenever we get the chance.

I sometimes want a list of organization names that develop PostgreSQL when I'm asked "How many companies and developers
aredeveloping         PostgreSQL?"  This question is sometimes made to compare with MySQL on how the community is
thriving.


> What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing to
> make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any single
> company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the Linux
> Foundation or the Python Foundation.

As a user, what reminds me of a single company is the Windows distribution.  The PG package for Windows is provided by
EDB,which I think may give an impression that PostgreSQL is a single-vendor open source project.  Please don't get me
wrong,I'm grateful to EDB for providing an easy-to-use package.
 

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa





-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

On 09/25/2017 06:03 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
> 
>> What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing to
>> make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any single
>> company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the Linux
>> Foundation or the Python Foundation.
> 
> As a user, what reminds me of a single company is the Windows distribution.  The PG package for Windows is provided
byEDB, which I think may give an impression that PostgreSQL is a single-vendor open source project.  Please don't get
mewrong, I'm grateful to EDB for providing an easy-to-use package.
 

Just FYI, there is also the BigSQL package which is also linked from .Org.

Thanks,

JD

> 
> Regards
> Takayuki Tsunakawa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

Greetings,

* Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
> > [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Frost
> > I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the major
> > players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one.  The unfortunate
> > reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big company behind
> > the open source project and few realize that PG has such a great and diverse
> > multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make a point to bring it
> > up whenever we get the chance.
>
> I sometimes want a list of organization names that develop PostgreSQL when I'm asked "How many companies and
developersare developing         PostgreSQL?"  This question is sometimes made to compare with MySQL on how the
communityis thriving. 

This would be a good question to have a better answer for, formally,
certainly.  I've looked at trying to formalize this is some way and even
made some progress towards actually having a method which can calculate
the answer to this question based on public information (emails to the
mailing lists, commitfest information, et al).  Perhaps I'll be able to
get back to that here soon, which will be necessary anyway.

It occurs to me that there isn't any particular reason why we couldn't
have the "Contributor profile" information able to be filled out by
anyone, which would allow all .Org users to identify the company they're
with, if they choose to, and why we don't try to link those back to the
Organizations that are also maintained in the website database.  I'll
make a note to try and bring that up on -www for discussion.

> > What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing to
> > make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any single
> > company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the Linux
> > Foundation or the Python Foundation.
>
> As a user, what reminds me of a single company is the Windows distribution.  The PG package for Windows is provided
byEDB, which I think may give an impression that PostgreSQL is a single-vendor open source project.  Please don't get
mewrong, I'm grateful to EDB for providing an easy-to-use package. 

As mentioned, there's multiple providers of Windows packages linked from
the .Org website, but I tend to agree that we aren't really doing a
great job making it clear that there's multiple providers.  That said,
my preference would actually be for .Org to have a canonical
distribution for all of the platforms that we list off of .Org.

The difficulty there is that we wouldn't do our users any service,
really, by removing the links, and as long as the links exist it's
unlikely that we're going to see anyone volunteer to put in the effort
to build them independently.  Not to mention that the ship has already
more-or-less sailed when it comes to providing links from .Org to these
non-.Org distributions and those companies wouldn't be terribly pleased
to see us remove their links either.  When those companies are also
providing serious material efforts towards moving the project forward by
employing key developers on the project and developing features, well,
it just doesn't make sense to go upsetting the apple cart there.

Of course, if anyone has good suggestions for how to effect changes here
that'll both keep the companies happy, particularly those who are
contributing a great deal to the project, and make it clearer that PG is
a multi-company effort, this is a good place to discuss those ideas, but
raising the concern without having suggestions for changes to make isn't
really moving things forward.  Hopefully the above discussion helps to
outline some of the challenges in this area and helps to spur discussion
of concrete ideas which address those challenges while also moving us
forward.

Thanks!

Stephen

On 13 September 2017 at 23:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
>>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
>>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
>>> starting to show my own bias.
>>
>> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

...

> Granted, those statistics are only for 2016.

Statistics change over time. As I have pointed out previously, the
time range you picked for that analysis neatly avoided the work
committed by people just outside that time range, giving a false view
of who does what. There was a large amount of code from 2ndQuadrant
that was rejected in 2016 but committed in 2017, plus other factors.
If you had looked at other time ranges the conclusions would be
different, so its easy to decide which result you wish to highlight
and then pick your query accordingly. So it matters whether you are
discussing submitted/committed (or even reviewed), plus time range
etc., plus type, size, importance of commit.

If you look at 2017 in first 8 months, the figures for commits at
least are different. Certainly when I checked to see if Stephen was
correct, I saw that 2ndQuadrant had committed more than Crunchy. I
haven't checked against EDB, but no doubt you will and I wish you good
luck. I'm sure things will change again in the future.

2ndQuadrant has not tried to perform the most commits, nor do I think
we ever will. What we've tried to do is to build useful features for
PostgreSQL and I'm happy that we've been prominent in that. I am happy
that we're been a catalyst for other people's contributions and if you
can beat 2ndQuadrant, good luck and thanks for contributing to open
source.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

Simon,

* Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 13 September 2017 at 23:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >>> If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
> >>> various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
> >>> company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
> >>> starting to show my own bias.
> >>
> >> It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.

[...]

> If you look at 2017 in first 8 months, the figures for commits at
> least are different. Certainly when I checked to see if Stephen was
> correct, I saw that 2ndQuadrant had committed more than Crunchy. I
> haven't checked against EDB, but no doubt you will and I wish you good
> luck. I'm sure things will change again in the future.

To be clear, I did not make any statement as to who did what when, and
that was my intent because I wasn't looking to start a thread about
stats but rather to try and make exactly the point that there are
multiple companies which deserve mention when it comes to the discussion
of who contributes to moving PostgreSQL forward.

I certainly wouldn't have complained at all if the original article
under discussion here had looked at 2017-to-date, or 2016-to-date, or
any other reasonable time range to draw their conclusion from about
which companies contribute to PG development, the complaint here is that
they didn't appear to do any such analysis, nor did they even
acknowledge that multiple companies are involved in PG development, and
that's what I find particularly unfortunate.

Thanks!

Stephen

On 09/26/2017 05:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Simon,

> I certainly wouldn't have complained at all if the original article
> under discussion here had looked at 2017-to-date, or 2016-to-date, or
> any other reasonable time range to draw their conclusion from about
> which companies contribute to PG development, the complaint here is that
> they didn't appear to do any such analysis, nor did they even
> acknowledge that multiple companies are involved in PG development, and
> that's what I find particularly unfortunate.

It is unfortunate but not unexpected. The company with the best 
marketing and networking department wins. EDB does one thing better than 
every other Postgres company: marketing and networking. They have been 
on a systematic path of brand narrative control for over a decade and it 
continues to pay off. EDB realized long ago that when it comes to brand 
awareness and narrative, .Org leaves everything to be desired. .Org does 
not speak the language that the majority of companies want to hear. EDB 
does.

I remember when EDB spent an ridiculous amount of money to have a huge 
booth, right next to another huge booth at LinuxWorld. The other huge 
boot was Oracle. It was bold and as a great actor once said, "This raid, 
even if it makes it through, it'll only be a pinprick... but it'll be 
straight through their hearts."[1]

Would .Org be willing to make that kind of bold move? No. As a whole 
.Org is all about get along or move along. We don't rock the boat 
(anymore). Some of this is to be expected, the community in France is 
very different than the community in NYC. They want to hear and see 
different things. They have different or at least a different view of 
how those goals can be met.

And before someone says, "let's start an initiative!" let's remember 
that collectively WE ARE NOT marketing people. Some of us are better 
than others at it but at our hearts we are geeks. We are o.k. at 
advocating to our masses but the guy cutting the check for 100k is not 
our masses. The people who organized this webinar and the people who 
will watch this webinar are not our masses. We as a community DO NOT 
have the skills that EDB has in this department.

If we did have such marketing and networking skills, there is too much 
animosity and indifference in this community toward the type of work 
real advocacy and marketing takes. It is very difficult for someone to 
feel motivated to put in the level of effort it would take to build up 
.Org to even a remotely similar level.

Until this community accepts that advocacy, marketing and networking are 
just as important (if not more important) than contributing code these 
types of discussions are just merry go rounds.

Thanks,

JD

P.S. I am sure if you review the archives you will see that this exactly 
discussion with different players has happened dozens of times with 
similar results.

1. Alec Baldwin in Perl Harbor

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Stephen
> 


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy