| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ned Lilly <ned(at)xtuple(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle |
| Date: | 2013-06-27 14:50:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20130627145045.GA10025@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:40:57AM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
> >Now, if that 9 years is somehow _optional_ on Salesforce's part, then
> >there might be something to the "maintain a relationship", but I have
> >not seen anything suggesting that.
> I would be really surprised if Salesforce went for that deal. Got
> to believe that they have the option to do other stuff. The more I
> think about it, the weaker Oracle looks in this exchange.
I think the big question is what would motivate SalesForce to go for
that deal? SalesForce certainly has been hostile to Oracle in the
past, so why the big "hug" now? Mentioning Postgres in an Oracle
negotiation has been known to reduce prices, so was this just a huge
example of that?
> I guess time will tell...
Robert Bernier's quote is looking more profound to me, "It sounds like a
chess game and Postgres is the board." No matter what the truth, there
is a lot of chess in here.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-06-27 15:00:10 | Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle |
| Previous Message | Ned Lilly | 2013-06-27 14:40:57 | Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle |