On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 03:53:59 PM Jan Karremans wrote:
> Could it just be that they are scared of PostgreSQL and now single out EDB as a target for a specific market?
Keep in mind, all they're trying to do is sell themselves where all the arguments are targeted specifically for whom
theywish to address i.e. companies requiring technical support and find it cost effective to farm out 'consulting'
services.
--
Robert Bernier
>
> > On 12 sep. 2017, at 15:51, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>> wrote:
> > Simon,
> >
> > * Simon Riggs (simon@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:simon@2ndquadrant.com>) wrote:
> > > On 12 September 2017 at 13:11, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If they really wanted to contrast 'open source commitment' between the
> > > > various vendors, they probably should have considered including the
> > > > company that actually commits the most code to PG too, but that's
> > > > starting to show my own bias.
> > >
> > > It certainly would be very generous of you to mention 2ndQuadrant, thank you.
> >
> > I had been avoiding mentioning any specific compnay names; the point
> > being that there clearly was little research done by the folks that put
> > together this upcoming talk into who is doing what in the Postgres
> > space.
> >
> > I agree that it would have been good for them to include all of the
> > major players when it comes to PG and not just focus on one. The
> > unfortunate reality is that in many other projects there's "the one" big
> > company behind the open source project and few realize that PG has such
> > a great and diverse multi-company ecosystem, even though many of us make
> > a point to bring it up whenever we get the chance.
> >
> > I agree with these points. Of course a competitive overview by a competitor might be taking a different approach
forone or a number of other reasons. For example if price is one thing they are covering, things would be different if
theyare covering the official version of the software.
> >
> > What might be interesting to discuss here is what more we can be doing
> > to make it clear that the PostgreSQL project is independent of any
> > single company and instead has contributions from many, not unlike the
> > Linux Foundation or the Python Foundation.
> >
> > 100% agreed on that point.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy