If no one allowed small-startup technology into production, then the industry stagnation would be tremendous, so I disagree that is the issue. However, once you do rely on a small-startup database, it better be closed source, so I disagree: the issue is the closed-source part, not the small-startup part.
The fact is that the world depends on closed source databases. So yes I continue to disagree that you should never use one just because it is closed source.
And I never said that people shouldn't use small startup technologies. Only that when you do you take the risk of the company not being around in a few years. And the people who will take that risk are really other startups or early adopters.
>> I disagree: the issue is the closed-source part, not the small-startup part.
Correct. But you are betting the success of your nascent start up on another nascent start up. This is straight up wrong.
For a large company its different. They have all the resources to go into months long migration projects. As a start up, you can't afford time for migrations when you are busy doing the real work.
This is why the world needs early adopters. There needs to be people interested enough in new technologies for their own sake to invest time in them. That's a very different motivation than P&G or Unilever.
I oversimplify it by saying "Companies will pay cash and accept closed source in return for good documentation and someone to answer the phone." Most non-IT buyers don't bring up open vs closed source in purchasing discussions.
