Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a

> Tom,
>
> > project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think
> > "MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that
> > it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> We also don't have a couple of other things that MySQL has: A
> viciously divided community, a bobby-trapped licensing situation, and a
> flagrant disredard for the SQL standard and cumulative wisdom of 25
> years of database knowledge. (Nested tables! Sheesh!) These things
> handicap the MySQL project quite effectively, and are not likely to be
> straightened out in the next year.
>
> BTW, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE the above. It's ok for the hacker's list,
> but I do not want to fuel the MySQL/Postgres "debate" anywhere more
> public. This "debate" does not benefit either project.

Oh, but it's _so_ tempting :-).

> Also, I am concerned about the focus on MySQL as our "only competitor".
> Frankly, I have never regarded MySQL as our primary competitor; that
> spot is reserved for Microsoft SQL Server. Especially with the death
> of SQL Anywhere, Postgres and MS SQL are the two major databases in the
> transaction/vertical application space for the budget-minded business
> (although MS SQL is considerably less budget-minded than it was a year
> ago).
>
> When we've crushed MS SQL, then it's time to take on Oracle and DB2.

Take on SQL Server, and establish a sizable useful niche. The notion that
PostgreSQL is _necessarily_ supposed to be all things to all people promotes
the danger of getting over-arrogant and over-ambitious.

> I think there's plenty of room in the RDBMS market for both MySQL and
> PostgreSQL. If there's a marketing need, it's to educate DBA's on the
> different strengths of the two databases. You think MySQL would
> cooperate in this, or do they see themselves as competing head-on with
> us?

Why _should_ they want to cooperate?

Their advantage in the marketplace is largely based on the notion that
"MySQL isn't quite as good as Oracle, but it's a lot cheaper!"

For them to say, "and by the way, PostgreSQL, SAPDB, and Firebird are all
basically the same that way" would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Their model is rather like that of Microsoft Access: It's not all that great,
but it gets used a lot, despite its limitations, because everyone has a copy
of it as part of MS Office.

For them to "cooperate" would mean compromising on what's most important to
their ongoing marketing strategy:
"Use MySQL because it's the most popular database!"

> > In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really
> > feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with
> > comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on
> > promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've
> > sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in
> > the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses.
> > But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget
> > won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals
> > with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em.
>
> I disagree pretty strongly, Tom. OpenOffice.org Marketing has no
> cash, and is an all-volunteer effort. To quote journalist Amy Wohl
> "[OpenOffice.org] have managed to put together a better buunch of
> volunteer marketers than Sun is able to hire." Frankly, of the various
> marketing techniques, only going to trade shows costs money; the rest
> is all labor which can be done by volunteers and donors.
>
> Of course, this requires somebody pretty inspired to organize it. I
> already have my hands full with OpenOffice.org. Volunteers?

The _crucial_ marketing that would need to take place is NOT to the public.
It would be to:
a) ISPs
b) Vendors of ISP support software.

The sort of thing that has allowed MySQL to get really popular is the fact
that there are tools like cPanel <http://www.cpanel.net/> that provide a
"friendly" front end to manage web site 'stuff,' including managing MySQL.

> And isn't Red Hat doing anything to promote us?

They ought to be...

> Finally, thanks to you guys, we are still advancing our project faster
> than most commercial software. How many RDBMSs out there have DOMAIN
> support? How many have advanced data types that really work? How
> many support 5 procedural languages and subselects just abotu
> everywhere?

... And this is what is the plausible strategy for making PostgreSQL
increasingly popular. _Improve it_ and people will come.

MySQL won the "basic DBMS for web-hosting" battle, and there's no real way to
overcome that _marketing_ advantage. MySQL got there the "fustest with the
mostest," with things like cPanel allowing ISPs and web hosters to offer a
free DBMS.

PostgreSQL can offer "the same thing;" to evict MySQL, it will have to offer
_really compelling_ advantages. Price _isn't_ a compelling advantage.
PostgreSQL may be more powerful, but people are successfully using MySQL, so
apparently it's _usable enough_ for a lot of purposes.

The other thing that can make PostgreSQL an increasingly preferable option is
for there to be an increasing set of _applications_ that prefer PostgreSQL.

For instance, GnuCash has an SQL interface, or, to be more precise, a
PostgreSQL interface. The makers of GnuCash found they preferred PostgreSQL's
capabilities, and are uninterested in supporting a bunch of DBMSes. Somewhat
similar, SQL-Ledger is compatible with PostgreSQL (and Oracle), but NOT MySQL.

The thing that will make PostgreSQL the "killer app" that needs to be around
is there being _applications_ that "prefer PostgreSQL." THAT is the best
marketing.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html
Everyone has a photographic memory, some don't have film.