> Alternatives are supposed to cover all uses case I can't think of a single tech product where feature parity was a driver for growth. If all you have is pari

> Alternatives are supposed to cover all uses case I can't think of a single tech product where feature parity was a driver for growth. If all you have is parity, then all you compete on is lower price. Usually, some advantage (better/safer/faster/easier) makes a difference for a few important use cases (good examples were early, feature-incomplete no-sql databases that excelled in one use case that existing SQL servers did not). That advantage hasn't emerged yet, so no community has developed. We'll see if it ever does...