On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Adam Lang wrote:
> Ah but remember... what is a "better RDBMS" to a company may be
> different than one for the open source community.
I'm not sure I see that...
The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money
implementing a feature and then attempt to recoup their investment by
holding said feature back from the PGSQL source tree. If someone else
duplicates that feature and it is accepted into the tree before GB has
covered their expenses GB would now be out some amount of money and have
at worst, a continual wart they would have to maintain outside the tree,
or at best a consolidation of features with the opensource version of the
feature. Having redundant code would be somewhere in the middle.
</runon>
The real question is this: At some point in the future the PostgreSQL
project may have to delay integrating a feature in order to play nicely
with the commercial ventures working with them. Will this cause problems?
Will such a decision cause a split?
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever |