X-Original-To: pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFE6D1E60B; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:03:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74901-03; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:03:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from win.lh.vix.com (win.lh.vix.com [204.152.188.39]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC4DD1E7E2; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:03:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from house.payne.org (h000625e9c972.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.218.241.71]) (authenticated) by win.lh.vix.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3UIpZM01741; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:51:35 -0400 Received: from office2 ([10.19.69.1]) by house.payne.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id i3UGtNL2018638; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:55:23 -0400 From: "Andrew Payne" To: "Bruce Momjian" Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" , "PostgreSQL advocacy" Subject: Re: What can we learn from MySQL? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:01:18 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200404301636.i3UGa8L21797@candle.pha.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200404/303 X-Sequence-Number: 4275 Bruce wrote: > Remember, we all came to PostgreSQL because of the community > development, so we can't expect us to get excited about something that > risks that just to "win", as you say. If we had gone in this direction > with Great Bridge, we would have seriously injured PostgreSQL and it > might not be what it is today. The "direction" I think I'm suggesting is actually not all that different from Great Bridge. And to your point, Great Bridge failed yet Postgres still thrived. The difference is that you could now correct for Great Bridge's problems, which include but are not limited to: timing (4 years has changed a lot for commercial acceptance of open source), funding ($25m was too much), and strategy (this is not an quick attempt to copy Red Hat). I think such a project, with the right parameters, is very fundable. If anyone wants to talk about that, you should drop me an email off-list; we're probably stepping out of topic for the hacker and advocacy lists. -andy