joe_audette@xxxxxxxxx (Joe Audette) writes: > My guess is what this really means is they weren't making money on > it. Its a community friendly spin to suggest that community support > is so good that not many companies will pony up for commercial > support. My guess is that its fairly accurate though. A company is > only going to use postgreSQL if their dba is behind it and for that > to be the case the dba is probably pretty comfortable with their own > knowledge backed by community support. If its not the dba who is > promoting pgsql in the company then it is likely an exec who sees it > as a way to save money and likely doesn't want to pay for support > for a free product. Also, it's worth considering that there are other service organizations out there. With some of its "staff acquisitions," Command Prompt has more staff at a high technical level with PostgreSQL than Pervasive did. In effect, this suggests that CP (and others that are generally smaller players) "beat out" Pervasive. I also have heard vaguely that there may have been other politicking taking place inside Pervasive. Becoming a successful PG "shop" wasn't necessarily something everyone there agreed they wanted to do. I have no special knowledge about such, but would strongly suspect that there's more to the story than will ever meet our eyes. I suppose it would be at least somewhat interesting to watch what they do next; if it *isn't* to go in some clear new technical direction, that would support the notion that what happened wasn't "about us." -- "cbbrowne","@","acm.org" http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/finances.html "This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - Arthur Dent
