Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: beta testing version

From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Date: 2000-12-02 22:11:17
Message-ID: 3.0.1.32.20001202141117.017d5bf0@mail.pacifier.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:

>"We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to
>the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time
>we are considering requests from a number of development companies and
>venture capital groups to join us in this process."
>
>Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of
>people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye
>toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working
>on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality
>suppressing the competition.

Well, this is just all 'round a bad precedent and an unwelcome path
for PostgreSQL, Inc to embark upon.

They've also embarked on one fully proprietary product (built on PG),
which means they're not an Open Source company, just a sometimes Open
Source company.

It's a bit ironic to learn about this on the same day I learned that
Solaris 8 is being made available in source form.  Sun's slowly "getting
it" and moving glacially towards Open Source, while PostgreSQL, Inc.
seems to be drifting in the opposite direction.

>if I absolutely need
>something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use
>a snapshot server. 

This work might be released as Open Source, but it isn't an open development
scenario.  The core work's not available for public scrutiny, and the details
of what they're actually up don't appear to be public either.

OK, they're probably funding Vadim's work on WAL, so the idictment's probably
not 100% accurate - but I don't know that.  

>I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an
>open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has
>slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs
>in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the
>quasi-propriatary extensions.

Which makes me wonder, is Vadim's time going to be eaten up by working
on these quasi-proprietary extensions that the rest of us won't get
for two years unless we become customers of Postgres, Inc?

Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative,
leaving us with a potential code fork?  If IB gets its political problems
under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a
long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer.

These developments are a major annoyance.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-12-02 22:41:34
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Tom SamploniusDate: 2000-12-02 21:52:27
Subject: Re: beta testing version

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group