Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> I think, though, that telling them that they must work on a certain
>> feature, because that's what the users are asking for, is the wrong
>> approach. Not to say that is exactly what you are requesting, but I
>> suggest that is where you are leading.
> The more communication between users and developers the better.
> Companies would pay a fortune for the user complaints, moans and
> groans, suggestions, bug reports and demands that postgresql sees in a
> single day.
>
> IMHO developers need reality checks ... well so do users but for
> different reasons. There is no quicker way to kill a product or
> project than to ignore the needs/wants of the user/customer base
> (open-source or not).
Nobody is ignoring users or needs or wants. It is a question of
priority. My priorities may not match yours may not match Tom's or one
of the other core contributors. Valuable features are being added to
PostgreSQL with each release as community efforts (or business efforts).
With the exception of some arguably naive requests such as "give me a
super fast count(*) - why is that so hard?" users are certainly being
listened to - because we are the users. I have personally requested
items, found myself to be not alone, and seen the group request
implemented ahead of my expectations.
So again, my question is - what is broken? What needs to be fixed?
I, for one, think the core developers are doing a great job, and the
extended team (community) is working very well together. I am a
PostgreSQL advocate *because* of the model, not in spite of the model.
If you want a corporate model, I believe Oracle is also a great product
and it may be more compatible with your expectations? (Ironically, I
would expect to see new features that *I* ask for implemented in
PostgreSQL *before* Oracle would listen to me)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>