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

Re: Feedback on blog post about Replication Feature decision and its impact

From: Dirk Riehle <dirk(at)riehle(dot)org>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feedback on blog post about Replication Feature decision and its impact
Date: 2008-06-01 13:31:44
Message-ID: 4842A4C0.5020506@riehle.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Thanks for the feedback. I was a bit worried the post would be too 
bland, but I think I'm seeing now where I wanted to go in the first 
place, which is to discuss perceptions around conflict of interest.

I sometimes hear stuff like "in order to take over an open source 
project you need to hire the committers". Ignoring the insult to the 
integrity of the committers, I think this is also based on a wrong idea 
of conflict of interest.

One typical perceived conflict of interest is that commercial companies 
may use committers to keep commercially relevant features out of the 
free community product in order to better facilitate an upsell. One 
might have argued that replication in PostgreSQL is a case in point. So 
in my blog post I argue that enhancing the core product is actually in 
the interest of commercial offerings because "the enemy" is not the free 
community edition but rather alternative products like Oracle or MySQL. 
And making the free community product stronger beefs up the sales 
process, because a corner stone of open source based sales processes is 
to get free versions into potential customer companies.

Now, I'm sure I'm a bit naive about this, however, the core argument I 
make above seems right to me. It would be interesting see where actual 
conflicts of interest happen and the last defense for the community is 
actually the integrity of the committers, and not some economic reasoning.

Cheers,
Dirk

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dirk,
>
>   
>> <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/">EnterpriseDB</a> is a well-funded
>> database startup whose product builds on PostgreSQL. EnterpriseDB adds
>> many "enterprise-readiness" features to the basic PostgreSQL product,
>> including database replication, and much more. 
>>     
>
> The replication-in-core vs. not-in-core has absolutely nothing to do with 
> EnterpriseDB either way.  I think you'd be doing a disservice to your readers 
> by implying that it does.   Or with the GPL.  If you want to blog about these 
> things, maybe break them up into seperate posts?
>
>   

-- 
Into novel software paradigms, tools, processes?
Then submit a short paper to Onward! 2008 by July 2nd!
See http://www.oopsla.org/oopsla2008/cfp/cfp-onward.html
--
Phone: + 1 (650) 215 3459, Web: http://www.riehle.org


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-01 13:57:42
Subject: Re: synchronized scans for VACUUM
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-06-01 12:20:51
Subject: Re: synchronized scans for VACUUM

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-06-01 14:56:10
Subject: Re: Feedback on blog post about Replication Feature decision and its impact
Previous:From: Shane AmblerDate: 2008-06-01 05:23:21
Subject: Re: Feedback on blog post about Replication Feature decision and its impact

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