-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Since it doesn't have to make money to survive, it has a different
> definition of success, and that is, to me, that the people who use
> it and code it find it to be best for their uses. If others join
> in and use it or hack on it, that's great, but postgresql definitely
> has enough critical mass to continue for many years to come with
> little or no marketing. Personally, I don't care if postgresql
> captures 1% of the market of 99% of the market, as long as it remains
> the solid, reliable dbms engine it is.
I care. More market share equals more jobs, which equals more people
working on the project. It's all well and good to treat Postgres as
an academic exercise, but at some point the work needs to be applied
to real world stuff. We are competing with real-world, commercial
projects right now, and the success of how well we do will directly
impact this project. Do you think that Red Hat will continue to employ
Tom Lane if Postgres fades away into a footnote and something else
becomes the database of choice for Red Hat? Do you realize that every
time a company chooses us, jobs are created for people who use,
test, and even develop PostgreSQL?
I also want to see PostgreSQL succeed in the marketplace because I
am frankly embarrassed that MySQL is considered the
"open source database." The open source community can do a lot better
than that. Not only is Postgres technically superior, but we are now
(IMO) morally superior, as we don't spread FUD and change our license
mid-stream in an attempt to make money.
> It's success is measured in the quality of its code, not the
> number of users.
Success is measured in constant improvement and growth. I don't want
PostgreSQL to be the best database system around that nobody uses.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200404282124
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFAkFr3vJuQZxSWSsgRAk8IAJ96vN6VuI2dMWmfxWB+yG/CrWTkogCgqBgo
rsUJMoM6oPEJ83ixpaXdvTo=
=zH3B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----