I think the misconception here is that the core team has customers.
They don't. People use their software, because it truly kicks ass, but
that's it. If less people use their software, it's unfortunate, but
it's not like the core team is loosing out on anything, either.
My understanding is that the core team wants to focus their limited
effort on making a quality backend that will be the most use to the
most people. They've expressed (many times) that they have zero
interest in doing anything else. After all, why should they, when
they're already overbooked and their code is free to be repackaged?
My understanding is also that there are an increasing amount of people
that don't like this model. They want the core team to package their
specialized needs along with the core db and support it as one. Or,
maybe said another way, they want all their features to come from one
entity and be supported by that entity.
Seems like what we have here is a golden opportunity for a business.
Though, aren't there already such redhat-like consulting businesses for
postgres?
Aug 23, 2004, at 1:03 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>
> Your customers and many of your contributors would really like to see
> PostgreSQL become more then just the core backend. A Redhat bundle is
> great if your'e a Redhat user. If you are on another platform however,
> it's no good to you. And some bundle from "a group of ppl" or
> "someone"?
> No, sorry, that won't cut it either. It's just not the same thing at
> all.
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings