On 7/22/05, Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
>
> Why should this matter to PostgreSQL and it's users? Because if MySQL
> becomes the defacto open source database, that means it will be much
> more difficult to use PostgreSQL in professional environments, and that
> many people who might have developed for PostgreSQL will end up
> developing for MySQL.
Actually the issue IMHO comes from the business and PR side. This will
take a couple paragraphs, indulge me ;-)
I see the biggest difference between MySQL<->PostgreSQL is that MySQL
has always appeared to be 'owned' by one company, MySQL.com (formerly
Monty's company IIRC). PostgreSQL has no such 'owner', so there is no
definitive entity to do business with. RedHat almost pulled this off
with Linux, but their identity crisis a couple years ago after Robert
Young left opened the door for all of the others and RedHat lost their
grip.
But ultimately that is one thing that holds PostgreSQL back, and other
F/OSS projects - when the business world gets involved, they expect
someone to be the de-facto source. This is not right or wrong, but
reality in the business world, right?
Say I am wanting to produce a commercial product, and want to license
an open-source database to cash in on the whole open source trend as
well as lower costs. I want to have a license, so that I can also use
that license as part of the marketing approach to show that this is a
'legitimate' product. With MySQL I can do that, but with PostgreSQL
who can I go to?
And if I am someone wanting to learn database programming, there are
tons of open source databases out there to choose from. Which one do I
choose? One factor for me will be the commercial value of my skills
that I develop, as if I cannot make money at my trade then this is
just a hobby.
What I'd love to see for PostgreSQL is a more aggressive push on the
business side, to get PostgreSQL into the same enterprise accounts
that MySQL is starting to get into. Like Zend is to PHP, who is
analogous in the PostgreSQL world?
-- Mitch