Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

[Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>]

On Thursday 28 April 2005 01:48, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
> > because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized?  In fact,
> > it might have be happening already.
>
> Well that depends... If the companies are writing for Pervasive
> PostgreSQL I don't think they would have a problem with that ;).
>
> And I do agree with you Bruce, it is happening already -- I don't think
> there is any question in that.
>

ISTM the allure of differentiation and branding is going to be too strong for 
us to prevent such things.  An easy way to differentiate is to add some 
proprietary/unique extension to the main code and then package that up. If 
you have to have all your extensions be put into the community version then 
lose this advantage over your comptetitors. (Mammoth PostgreSQL/Replicator is 
an example of this)  The same holds true for branding.... if your Pervasive 
you want to sell Pervasive Postgres rather than PostgreSQL because you get to 
push your name out there, and get people thinking about your company whenever 
they talk about the database.   

I think our goal is to encorage companies to push these changes into the core 
as much as possible, pointing out things like the advantages community 
support brings like ongoing maintainance,  support in add-on tools like 
pgadmin or phppgadmin, and eliminating the chance that someone else will 
submit a similar solution that gets accepted to the community code there by 
deprecating the work they have already done.  

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL