[HACKERS] CRN article not updated
I just checked the CRN PostgreSQL article at: http://www.crn.com/Sections/Fast_Forward/fast_forward.asp?ArticleID=25670 I see no changes to the article, even though Vince our webmaster, Geoff Davidson of PostgreSQL, Inc, and Dave Mele of Great Bridge have requested it be fixed. Not sure what we can do now. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup.| Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] CRN article not updated
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 02:22:48PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: I just checked the CRN PostgreSQL article at: http://www.crn.com/Sections/Fast_Forward/fast_forward.asp?ArticleID=25670 I see no changes to the article, even though Vince our webmaster, Geoff Davidson of PostgreSQL, Inc, and Dave Mele of Great Bridge have requested it be fixed. If _you_ had been deluged with that kind of vitriol, what kind of favors would you feel like doing? Not sure what we can do now. It's too late. "We" screwed it up. (Thanks again, guys.) The responses have done far more lasting damage than any article could ever have done. The horse is dead. The best we can do is to plan for the future. 1. What happens the next time a slightly inaccurate article is published? 2. What happens when an openly hostile article is published? Will our posse ride off again with guns blazing, making more enemies? Will they make us all look to potential users like a bunch of hotheaded, childish nobodies? Or will we have somebody appointed, already, to write a measured, rational, mature clarification? Will we have articles already written, and handed to more responsible reporters, so that an isolated badly-done article can do little damage? We're not even on Oracle's radar yet. When PG begins to threaten their income, their marketing department will go on the offensive. Oracle marketing is very, very skillful, and very, very nasty. If they find that by seeding the press with reasonable-sounding criticisms of PG, they can prod the PG community into making itself look like idiots, they will go to town on it. Nathan Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
[HACKERS] CRN article
Folks, By now, I imagine a number of people have seen the piece on the Computer Reseller News website about Great Bridge and PostgreSQL. While I think we're all happy to see the increased visibility for PostgreSQL (especially as compared to the Oracles of the world), it's fair to say the article wasn't perfect. As Nathan Myers observed in another post, they rarely are. ;-) I thought the reporter did a good job of talking about Great Bridge's business model and how we work with resellers and third-party software developers (which after all is the focus of the magazine). Sure, there were some minor errors of fact, like the confusion over PostgreSQL's Berkeley origins, and the use of the word "licensing." But of greater concern to us, and the reason I'm writing this note, is the lack of clarity about the open source community that has built, and continues to build this software. Great Bridge is one company, one member of a large community, and a relative newcomer to the party. We employ several leading PostgreSQL developers, and give back to the project in many ways, but at the end of the day, we're still only a very small part of the larger project - which precedes us by many years, and could very easily survive us as well. We are *a* marketing channel for PostgreSQL (not *the* channel), provide services around the software, and release a QA-certified distribution (bundled with other tools and applications), but we know that it's not *our* software. It's everyone's, and I'm sorry the article didn't adequately represent that reality. Having said that, I'd ask everyone to take a deep breath, as Nathan suggested, and realize that it's still early in the adoption cycle for open source in the larger business world and the mass media. There will continue to be nuances that seem blindingly obvious to us, but slip right through the reporting and editing process in the trade press. That's ok, as long as we correct those errors, as delicately as possible ;-) We all have a shared stake in PostgreSQL being more widely used and appreciated, and how we respond to things like this will go a long way toward furthering that goal. You can all be justifiably proud of the work that's gone into PostgreSQL, leading up to the terrific 7.1 release; a big part of Great Bridge's job as a marketing organization is to make sure the world finds out about it - an ongoing job that we take very seriously. If anyone has any questions about Great Bridge's position on this kind of stuff, please feel free to email me off-list. Thanks, Ned -- Ned Lilly e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vice Presidentw: www.greatbridge.com Evangelism / Hacker Relationsv: 757.233.5523 Great Bridge, LLCf: 757.233. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] CRN article
So, to sum up ... the article did a good job of representing Great Bridge,
did a great injustice (a slap in the face, so to say) to the PostgreSQL
community as a whole, so Great Bridge has no intention of correcting the
situation?
Just to clarify your position, of course ...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Ned Lilly wrote:
Folks,
By now, I imagine a number of people have seen the piece on the
Computer Reseller News website about Great Bridge and PostgreSQL.
While I think we're all happy to see the increased visibility for
PostgreSQL (especially as compared to the Oracles of the world),
it's fair to say the article wasn't perfect. As Nathan Myers
observed in another post, they rarely are. ;-)
I thought the reporter did a good job of talking about Great
Bridge's business model and how we work with resellers and
third-party software developers (which after all is the focus of the
magazine). Sure, there were some minor errors of fact, like the
confusion over PostgreSQL's Berkeley origins, and the use of the
word "licensing."
But of greater concern to us, and the reason I'm writing this note,
is the lack of clarity about the open source community that has
built, and continues to build this software. Great Bridge is one
company, one member of a large community, and a relative newcomer to
the party. We employ several leading PostgreSQL developers, and
give back to the project in many ways, but at the end of the day,
we're still only a very small part of the larger project - which
precedes us by many years, and could very easily survive us as
well. We are *a* marketing channel for PostgreSQL (not *the*
channel), provide services around the software, and release a
QA-certified distribution (bundled with other tools and
applications), but we know that it's not *our* software. It's
everyone's, and I'm sorry the article didn't adequately represent
that reality.
Having said that, I'd ask everyone to take a deep breath, as Nathan
suggested, and realize that it's still early in the adoption cycle
for open source in the larger business world and the mass media.
There will continue to be nuances that seem blindingly obvious to
us, but slip right through the reporting and editing process in the
trade press. That's ok, as long as we correct those errors, as
delicately as possible ;-)
We all have a shared stake in PostgreSQL being more widely used and
appreciated, and how we respond to things like this will go a long
way toward furthering that goal. You can all be justifiably proud
of the work that's gone into PostgreSQL, leading up to the terrific
7.1 release; a big part of Great Bridge's job as a marketing
organization is to make sure the world finds out about it - an
ongoing job that we take very seriously.
If anyone has any questions about Great Bridge's position on this
kind of stuff, please feel free to email me off-list.
Thanks,
Ned
--
Ned Lilly e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vice Presidentw: www.greatbridge.com
Evangelism / Hacker Relationsv: 757.233.5523
Great Bridge, LLCf: 757.233.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
