Feeds

Pervasive scraps PostgresSQL support

Customers stayed away in droves

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

Pervasive Software has called time on support and services for the PostgreSQL open source database, citing pressure caused by commoditization and price sensitivity.

In an open letter yesterday, Pervasive chief executive John Farr said he ""ound the opportunity for Pervasive Software to meaningfully increase the adoption of PostgreSQL by providing an alternative source for support and services was quite limited."

The company launched service and support for the open source database in February 2005, with pricing starting at $1,999 for basic support and going up to $4,999 for a 24-hour service. Pervasive also offered its own implementation of the database, called Pervasive Postgres, that was available for free download.

Intellectual property, white papers and other collateral devised by Pervasive will now be turned over to the open source community.

Farr's decision is a warning for Silicon Valley startups trying to build businesses based on support for open source. Not only is support a costly business activity that is difficult to scale, but companies must convince users they should spend money on something they have downloaded for free.

An Evans Data Corp survey this year found users of tools based on the Eclipse open source framework reluctant to pay for support. Just over 30 per cent expect support to be free while a third said if they had to pay, it would be less than $100.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that platform vendors could provide their own open source support services. IBM is piloting support for tools on Eclipse while Sun Microsystems has told The Register it may provide pre-integrated stacks of open source software, which would save customers the need to undertake integration on their own. Stacks could feature PostgreSQL and Solaris, as Sun is integrating PostgreSQL with Solaris 10.

Platform providers have the advantage for customers that the open source software would be integrated with products like application servers. Platform providers, meanwhile, have the edge over start ups because their costs would be relatively low and easy to lose in the bigger picture of their overall businesses. ®

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

More from The Register

next story
Download alert: Nearly ALL top 100 Android, iOS paid apps hacked
Attack of the Clones? Yeah, but much, much scarier – report
You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes
Fix issued, fingers pointed, forums in flames
Microsoft: Your Linux Docker containers are now OURS to command
New tool lets admins wrangle Linux apps from Windows
Facebook, working on Facebook at Work, works on Facebook. At Work
You don't want your cat or drunk pics at the office
Soz, web devs: Google snatches its Wallet off the table
Killing off web service in 3 months... but app-happy bonkers are fine
First in line to order a Nexus 6? AT&T has a BRICK for you
Black Screen of Death plagues early Google-mobe batch
Microsoft adds video offering to Office 365. Oh NOES, you'll need Adobe Flash
Lovely presentations... but not on your Flash-hating mobe
prev story

Whitepapers

Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
10 threats to successful enterprise endpoint backup
10 threats to a successful backup including issues with BYOD, slow backups and ineffective security.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
The hidden costs of self-signed SSL certificates
Exploring the true TCO for self-signed SSL certificates, including a side-by-side comparison of a self-signed architecture versus working with a third-party SSL vendor.