Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions

jimworke(at)inbox(dot)lv wrote:
> I don't know if you're referring to me, but I was just expressing
> me and my company concern about using 3rd party solution. I
> don't have any intention of finding PostgreSQL's fault (and I'm
> not saying you accuse of that, because you don't). I think it's
> a great product, and as I've said, I used it personally before,
> and I loved it.
>
> The problem I'm having is that I'm coming from business point
> of view. And so I'd like to know what is the plan PostgreSQL
> team has for those 3rd party solution.
>
> We don't really want to use MySQL. But from what you tell me
> to use MySQL just because of my avoidance of 3rd party solution,
> then I think a lot of people will overlook that PostgreSQL is
> a good product.
>
> From the long discussion, I do now understand that PostgreSQL
> team would rather focus on the core. And I think Ben
> (bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com) answer it well by saying that there's
> an opportunity of business (of gathering the core and 3rd party
> solutions into a package). That gives me the relief that at
> least there's somewhere we can turn to for support in packaging.

Yea, we are more dynamic and and less organized than companies.
That is good and bad.

Agreed companies can help to give a more organized front to our project,
but underneath we will still be less organized than a company that hires
guys to do things --- again good and bad.

If we are too organized, we would look good and solid on the outside,
but the vibrancy that makes us successful would be gone. Frankly, I
think companies will understand that in years to come, but perhaps not
right now.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073