| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: recent Gartner's publication |
| Date: | 2015-10-16 15:24:19 |
| Message-ID: | 562116A3.3010207@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 10/16/2015 08:05 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> * In my opinion, they are focused on money-making enterprises, which
> the community is not.
>
> In summary, I would love to see a Postgres category on there, and would
> love to see Postgres as a pin on that chart, but it seems like a
> difficult goal unless their approach to open source dramatically
> changes.
If I remember correctly from years past when I paid any attention
whatsoever to Gartner, they primarily (only?) analyze companies/products
that spend money with *them*, and lots of it. If we wanted to get
PostgreSQL on their radar, it would be very expensive to do so
unless/until they drastically change the way they pick the dots to place
on their quad charts. And it is sad, but true, that lots of large
enterprises put so much stock into what is essentially nothing more than
a marketing channel (hence the preponderance of large companies and
those with VC funding).
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-10-16 17:05:39 | Re: recent Gartner's publication |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-10-16 15:05:02 | Re: recent Gartner's publication |