RE: RMS's note to am-info regarding software development models...

[Matthew Benjamin <MBenjamin@comshare.com>]

Postgres was developed--in a very different form from what is now available
as OSS--to prove the concept of an Object Relational database management
system.

The project leader, Michael Stonebreaker (a legend in database circles and
CS generally), first commercialized the source code as Illustra.  Illustra
was sold to Informix in 1995.

The current PostgresSQL is a massive development, all volunteer, based on
the original Berkeley project.  To get a sense how much original work has
been done:  The Berkeley Postgres didn't even support SQL, let alone stored
procedures, etc.  PostgresSQL supports most of SQL92 and 3 stored procedure
languages.  (Programmers can define more--try that with any commercial
database system.)

Fact is Eric, Berkeley had no thought of putting anyone out of business.  On
the other hand, as they did with BSD UNIX, Berkeley (and Stonebreaker)
actually PUT THEM IN BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE:  One of the first RDBMS's
ever built was Berkeley INGRES---and INGRES source code has been the core of
several "commercial" RDBMS projects--maybe all of them, in some form or
other.

How's that for corporate welfare.


Matt



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Eric M. Bennett [SMTP:ericb@pobox.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 10, 1998 8:43 PM
> To:	am-info@essential.org
> Subject:	Re: RMS's note to am-info regarding software development
> models...
> 
> 
> >  Well, PostgreSQL (see http://www.postgresql.org) is an open source
> >database server that was developed at the University of Calafornia.  It
> >doesn't have all of the features of Oracle, but for some purposes it
> could
> >be a competative product.  Is it wrong for the University to produce such
> an
> >application?  I say it is not.
> 
> That depends on why they wrote it.  If they did it just to try to put
> commercial database vendors out of business to satisfy a vendetta against
> commercial vendors and because they refuse to submit to the supposed
> tyranny of a commercial product which would otherwise have suited their
> needs just fine, then I think it is a waste of public funds.
> 
> If they developed it because they had a special internal need not met by
> other software, then decided to make it free when they were finished
> (perhaps because they thought it would be useful to others, but had no
> interest in supporting it or developing it further), then I have no
> problem
> with funding it with public money because it was likely they best way for
> them to get the software that they needed.
> 
> Other scenarios are possible, of course.
> 
> By the way, where is the University of Calafornia?  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Eric Bennett (http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/)
> Cornell University, Field of Biochemistry
> 377 Olin Chemistry Lab
> 
> TIP: Buy Apple Computer
> WHY: According to Microsoft, the big, bad, scary Macintosh-maker
> threatened
> Bill Gates's poor little company in 1997.
> -Advice from the dilbert.com financial pages
> 
>