Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> A little truth in advertising would be nice here.
>
> > Please can you explain
> >
> > - why you claim to be "The" PostgreSQL Company, when there are many such
> > companies around the world. If you don't wish to mislead anyone, then
> > this clearly should be "A PostgreSQL Company: ....".
>
> Yes I have heard this argument. I still consider us "The PostgreSQL
> Company".

You must misunderstand the meaning of the word "The" then. It indicates
a definite article, such that there is only one. There is more than one
"PostgreSQL Company", therefore the statement is innacurate and
therefore misleading.

> > - how it is that you say "We are the only dedicated PostgreSQL company,
> > focusing all of our efforts on the promotion and proliferation of pure
> > PostgreSQL",
>
> Where did you get that quote, because I don't see it anywhere. We do
> say, "Command Prompt, Inc. is the oldest and only dedicated PostgreSQL
> support provider in North America. Since 1997, we have been developing,
> supporting, deploying and advocating the use of the “World's Most
> Advanced Open Source Database”."

I got it off your web site this morning and it is still there, on the
link I gave.

If you sell a closed source product as well, then the word "dedicated"
cannot apply to you. Even if you claim it does, your stretching of the
definition of that word would necessarily include EnterpriseDB (and
others), so the word "only" would then be invalid.

Your logic is erroneous and you are not "the only dedicated PostgreSQL
support provider" in North America.

> Which has been the source of some confusion in the past because of
> consultants such as David Fetter and Elein but overall I believe it is
> accurate.

They both seem fairly dedicated to me.

> > when on the very same page you offer for sale a product
> > which is clearly not part of pure PostgreSQL and you have stated clearly
> > that you have chosen not to contribute to the PostgreSQL project.
> > http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
>
> That is true. We have PostgreSQL replicator which "is" pure postgresql,
> with added replication bits. It is also closed source and we don't hide
> that fact in any way.

You are welcome to do that and I understand the need to make a living.
It just happens to contradict the sentence you use elsewhere on the same
web page, which I do object to because you are willing to make damaging
remarks about other businesses. Your views are clearly not objective in
the matter you raise, I believe my views are.

> >
> > I think people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
> >
>
> I would agree but of course what you say here is you trying to throw
> stones at us for bringing up an issue with EDB.

Not at all, I welcome all comments about EDB. I'm not an formal advocate
for EDB, just someone that works there and is always interested in
making it better. I've passed on your comments and will be following
them up. Since I am not the business owner or manager, it is not within
my power to change any wording, nor did I write it in the first place.

But your own comments refer to your own business as well, yet you will
do nothing about them even though you are the business owner. To
complain publicly about something another does, when you do a similar
thing is hypocrisy.

If you care about the things you say, you'll change your own web site.

--
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com