Re: my signature

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: my signature
Date: 2011-04-21 19:39:18
Message-ID: BANLkTikApk8XwmfVdca7ufDhzBh17q3Emw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Cédric Villemain
<cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, please.
> Robert, it wasn't well phrased and I apologize for the bad choice of my words.

No problem. Please be assured that I have no desire to make it appear
that EnterpriseDB is the only PostgreSQL company out there. I've been
using PostgreSQL for far longer than I have been with EnterpriseDB,
far longer than EnterpriseDB has existed, and given that we don't live
in an era of lifetime employment and still have many years of work
ahead of me, it's likely that I will work for lots of other companies
before I retire where I will probably also use (and hopefully continue
to hack on) PostgreSQL. Of course, for so long as I am working here,
I will be putting my efforts toward making the company as successful
as I can, which I think is what we all do for whoever is paying us at
the moment. I really like working in an open community that spans
multiple companies, because no company I have ever worked for has had
nearly as many smart people as the PostgreSQL community does, and no
software project that I have ever worked on has been as enjoyable for
me as PostgreSQL is. I guess it's natural that there will be some
tension since we are all competitors in some sense, but hopefully
friendly ones.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2011-04-21 19:51:19 Re: "stored procedures"
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-04-21 19:37:22 Re: "stored procedures"