From postgresql-general Tue Apr 15 01:52:17 2003 From: Brent Verner Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 01:52:17 +0000 To: postgresql-general Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum? X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=postgresql-general&m=105037159118578 Gretings! [2003-04-14 19:54] Tom Lane said: | Bruce Momjian writes: | > Several people have asked if we are losing momentum. | I don't know what we can do about it, other than maybe push harder to | get some more PG titles into O'Reilly's catalog ... that would help | narrow the bookshelf gap a little, at least. Any wannabee authors | out there? (And Bruce, your book is due for a second edition...) I've wanted to pipe up in a few of these "popularity" discussions in the past. Seeing how I can't make time to participate in any other meaningful capacity, I'll share my thoughts on _why_ mysql has the mindshare. Applications, specifically applications that _use_ mysql. A quick search over at freshmeat returns 1044 results for "mysql" and 260 for "postgresql". Before this turns into a cause/effect discussion, I want to state up front that the real "effect" of this is that someone is 4 times as likely to download an application that uses mysql. Sure, many are "trivial" applications, but I posit that it is _specifically_ these "trivial" applications that inoculate the uninitiated with the belief that mysql is suitable for use in real, albeit trivial applications. Additionally, it these rudimentary applications that will be studied by many as the way to write a database application. It is all good and well that postgres /can/ do, but until the application developers see that those features are valuable enough to forgo mysql support, they'll write the application to support whatever database is most likely to _already_ be installed, which will be mysql. Granted, many developers will also try to support multiple dbs via the language's db api, but this leaves the less-supported dbs in an even worse position; being relegated to an "might work with XXX database". When anxious user learns that "might" currently means "doesn't," the second-string database looks even worse in the eyes of the user. How to solve this problem? This is the hard part, but luckily ISTM that there are a few ways to succeed. Neither of which involves marketing or writing books. 1) become active in the "also supports postgres" projects, and add features that are made available _because_ of postgres' superiority. Eventually, market pressure for the cool feature(s) will lead users to choose postgres, and mysql could be relegated to the "also runs on mysql, with limited featureset" 2) take a popular project that uses mysql, fork it, and add features that can only be implemented using posgres. 3) release that super-cool code that you've been hacking on for years, especially if it is a "trivial" app. 4) convince your employer that it would be _beneficial_ to them to release, as open source, the internal app(s) you've developed, using postgres-specific features. (This is about all I can claim to be doing at this point in my indentured servitude, and I can't say I'm doing a good job... :-/) I'm sure this idea is not original, but I'm also sure that it _is_ the answer to gaining market^Wmindshare in this database market. (I must apologize in advance, that I might not have time to even follow this thread, in fact, I hope that instead of replying to this, the potential respondent might consider helping to increase the number of apps that require postgres :-) wishing-I-could-contribute-more-ly yours, brent -- "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly