On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 07:01, Ned Lilly wrote:
> > > I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better
> > > wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come
> > > and gone but postgresql continues on"
> >
> > How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as
> > sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued
> > (relatively) unaffected'
> >
> > Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-)
>
> All I'm saying is that from the outside, IMHO, it just creates more problems than it solves. To use a favorite
metaphorfrom this list, PHB's will read that and smell instability. I repeat, why volunteer it? Just say there are
manyfirms providing support today, and it's used at X, Y, and Z companies.
>
Yeah, I tend to agree. I do think there is a case to be made that the
business decisions of our support companies will never leave you out in
the cold; whether they are licensing changes, level of support changes,
complete abandonment of a product line, or even complete failure of the
business; problems you have seen with other database systems/vendors
that you just wont have with postgresql.
In much of the IT world people talk about when hardware/software become
commoditized, the focus of companies must shift to support, since
everyone is selling /more or less/ the same product. With postgresql we
have already achieved that within our own community, which should mean
companies can receive better support options that are more tailored to
their specific needs.
PostgreSQL :: Because good database support shouldn't require vendor
lock-in
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL