Josh, all,
* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> You aren't wrong but this is also all but impossible for
> PostgreSQL.org.
I disagree and I don't feel it's useful to downplay what Jonathan is
trying to do here.
> The majority of features now developed are developed
> by the needs of not PostgreSQL.Org but the needs of 2Q, EDB
> customers or even Amazon (in a different vein). The good news is we
> have at least two highly dedicated companies that donate code to the
> open code base, the bad news is both of these companies are move
> their clients to their closed platforms as soon as possible:
I'm confident that there's quite a few more companies which contribute
to PostgreSQL development than the two which you list, but I don't think
it's useful or productive to call out specific companies in the manner
you have here.
I agree with your later comment that we should work to decrease the
barrier to entry, but the way to do that is with specific concrete
recommendations which we can act on. Let's be positive here instead of
negative.
Thanks!
Stephen