Jan Wieck wrote: > I would like to add that there is a good reason why they aren't in the > same league. As a rule of thumb one can say that the smaller a software > company, the faster some development must turn into revenue. That is why > Oracle and Microsoft have the "time" to do things right. They can throw > 20 manyears at a project and if it turns out that wasn't enough, double > down on that. I include MS on purpose here, because they gain that time > from some products, and then use it on others like SQL server. MySQL on > the other hand didn't have that "time" in the past, and look what they > do as soon as they have 19.5 million seconds more "time" ... the only > thing that is right, replace the whole architecture, or what is that > MaxSQL move? I hope 19.5 million seconds are enough, honestly. Because > nobody will double down in their case. > > PostgreSQL does not have that problem because the base project itself > does not depend on any companies success. Time is relative. Our time is > very patient compared to their time. PostgreSQL gets the time it needs > for free.
Yes, I noticed that we have a much longer view of our software lifecycle than most other open source projects. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
