> Why do you think CA originally open-sourced Ingres? Why do you
> think it has changed its plan?
> My deadline is 2pm today.>>
>
> So what do we want to say?

2pm UK time of 2pm California time? I'm probably too late, but as
others have suggested, I would focus on the lack of community.

Back in 1996..98 a big argument used in favour of Linux and open
source was that it had "long term credibility". At the time small
software businesses were crumbling under the onslaught of MS and
other majors and the sales reps of the big guys were asking the
customers "are you sure that this other product will exist next
year?".

I would argue that CA likely was under pressure from customers about
the long term credibility of Ingres. They figured that open sourcing
& a $1 million contest would attract a community. This was the
cheapest way to safeguard the revenue stream.

It failed. The Ingres newsgroups are virtually empty. The new owners
will probably play the old CA game: sell support for as long as
possible to a slowly eroding user base.

That being said. Mr. Garnett seems to have understood that new users
are not going to come from selling databases sec. New users are going
to come from new applications being sold, containing Ingres in it.
His business problem is that there are no obvious new workloads where
the Ingres strengths are a fit.

Just my 2c worth.

Paul

PS The Morfik interview was on slashdot and the Firebird News server
got slashdotted for a bit. Sorry. Good publicity for Firebird though.