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 ---------------------------(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