Ned Lilly wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Jean-Michel,
>>
>> Please cc: this to the original poster:
>
>
> He did.
>
>> > > PostgreSQL. Today, it's clearly the superior product. It will be
>>
>> It is really? According to which criteria? Clearly more popular, certainly.
>> However, I may point out that MS Access still has more installations than
>> MySQL ...and nobody is calling MS Access a "superior database product".
>
>
> Er... I said PostgreSQL was the superior product. Re-read the original post.
>
>> To be completely blunt: MySQL the database will not easily survive the demise
>> of MySQL AB.
>
> Agreed. But $19MM ought to buy them a little more time.
Really? How patient are VC's who invest around 20 megadollars these
days? In the GB case the business modell got changed and the CEO
replaced even before we had real offices.
Now MySQL has to ramp up business to satisfy the investors and at the
same time they have to develop another database to satisfy SAP ... how
much time will be left to satisfy all the open source users with respect
to the promised features "in the old product line"? Renaming the
existing SAPDB into MySQL doesn't give any existing MySQL user more
functionality. At least not in a way they couldn't do it right now
without this naming confusion.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #