Re: Regional Contacts MIA

Hi Josh,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:

> The following volunteer Regional Contacts have not responded to my request
> to confirm that they are ready for the release of PostgreSQL 8.1.
> Possibly my e-mail list for some of you is out of date; if so, please let
> me know. They are:

> Devrim Gunduz - Turkey

I remember to have responded?

--
Devrim GUNDUZ
Kivi Bilişim Teknolojileri - http://www.kivi.com.tr
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
>From pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Mon Oct 17 15:19:43 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-advocacy-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08967D6EA1
for <pgsql-advocacy-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:18:22 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 68018-06
for <pgsql-advocacy-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:18:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.travelamericas.com (unknown [206.130.134.147])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D26BD7A45
for <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:18:18 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 23727 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2005 18:18:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.253?) (10.0.0.253)
by verkiel.travelamericas.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 2005 18:18:19 -0000
Message-ID: <4353EAEB(dot)1070501(at)travelamericas(dot)com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:18:19 -0700
From: Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,
Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>,
pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
References: <4583a049b477c2362d68dca2430b803a(at)biglumber(dot)com> <4353B950(dot)2060208(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> <1129568489(dot)32035(dot)3(dot)camel(at)state(dot)g2switchworks(dot)com>
In-Reply-To: <1129568489(dot)32035(dot)3(dot)camel(at)state(dot)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.047 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003,
FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05]
X-Spam-Level:
X-Archive-Number: 200510/212
X-Sequence-Number: 7847

Scott Marlowe wrote:

>I'd bet they read plenty, but don't necessarily understand a lot,
>judging by their pitiful fud campaign when Afilias proposed using
>postgresql as a database behind .org. They tried to say PostgreSQL
>didn't support transactions. So, while we may be on their screens, and
>I'm sure some marketeer there tries to keep up with some of the traffic
>here, the actual comprehension seems pretty low judging by their past
>statements.
>
>Actually, I kinda hope it stays that way.
>
>
Ok. I should have said "serious target." MySQL has been a serious
target for a number of years. I think we are still the unknown bugaboo
to them.

I.e. I see no evidence that Oracle is taking the PostgreSQL threat
seriously, and the FUD campaign is more evidence that they don't (there
are plenty of areas where Oracle has an edge over PostgreSQL-- the idea
that "PostgreSQL doesn't support transactions" can only indicate that
this was a cursory and hasty attack and maybe even a wakeup call for
them, or maybe they got us mixed up with MySQL w/MyISAM). The real
question is whether after the .org campaign occurred, we are now a
higher-profile target that is taken more seriously. Personally, I would
doubt it for reasons mentioned below.

The thing is, we may be a head-to-head competitor with Oracle in many
areas, but we are pretty minor compared to Sybase, Microsoft, and IBM at
the moment. I.e. while we are an emerging threat, Oracle has plenty of
clear and present threats to its market share to deal with. Therefore,
I am willing to bet that we are probably a distant target, somewhere
after Ingress II and maybe even Firebird/Interbase. This is based on
the assumption that in any significantly large corporation, there will
be a lot of legacy competitive effort and that the rampup time to look
at new threats is really pretty large. I.e. at Microsoft when I left
(2003), Java and Sun were still higher competitive priorities than Linux
(and still very much in a middle-phase). From what I have read after
leaving, I think that Microsoft's strategy is still in an opening phase
mostly consisting of GetTheFUD and internal product research.

MySQL is different. They established a large user base early on, and
people have a tendency (wrongly) to think of them as The Open Source
RDBMS. So I am willing to be that Oracle has been ramping up a
competitive strategy against them for at least five years (they showed a
clear competitive strategy against them as early as 2000). The fact
that they are an easier target complicates matters for them, but I think
that this is more of a transition to an end-game strategy by Oracle than
anything else.

I will be worried if and when Oracle demonstrates any intelligent
competitive strategy against us. A poorly orchestrated and hasty FUD
campaign does not qualify.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting