and thanks for sharing your view. here's mine:
mysql was sold to sun, a company with a long and deep commitment to oos.
while there were obviously risks to the sale, one plausible motive (among
others) is that a company like sun would be better placed to further
develop, market and support mysql, get it into the hands of more users (sun
is a trusted name even among the conservative and risk-averse parts of the
market), leverage their service and support organization, etc. and if they
can make money off it then maybe they will invest in development too.
so i see it as reasonable to have believed that sun would be good for mysql,
indeed that sun would be good next step for mysql in its journey. hence i
don't see that this sale necessarily implies that monty did not really care
i'm not advocating these arguments. i'm simply saying that, whether one
agrees with such arguments or not, there could plausibly exist conditions
under which sale of mysql to sun was compatible with really caring about it.
On 12/14/09 2:11 PM, "Claudio Nanni" <claudio.nanni@stripped> wrote:
> You build a green park where children can play.
> Then you sell the park to a private company.
> The company can: not mantain it so that the park becomes junkies place, have
> people pay to access it or even close it.
> I, the builder, would not start a crusade or weep after I have sold it,
> Once it is on the market it is like any other goods.
> I am on MySQL almost ten years but I am not scared of switching to Postgres,
> to a fork, start a new project, or quit dba for other real open source
> spirit journey.
> The community and open spirit is important not the product.
> Thats my view.
> Thanks Monty, always, for your gift.
> On 14 dec 2009 19:36, "Tom Worster" <fsb@stripped> wrote:
> On 12/14/09 1:49 AM, "Claudio Nanni" <claudio.nanni@stripped> wrote: > If
> he really cared about My...
> i don't see the logic in this sentence.