On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 07:35 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:30:44AM +1100, Rob Napier wrote:
> > Josh
> >
> > If that is the way you wish to be viewed, don't change a thing.
> >
> > E.g. I mentioned the importance of language. 'Extensible' is good,
> > 'hackable' has too many negative connotations.
> >
> > Community-owned. Nice but it should be near the bottom of the list.
> > It also has negative connotations in the corporate sphere. Not just
> > a bit hokey, it also can suggest undisciplined, under funded, and a
> > few other prejoratives that come to mind.
>
> No offense, Rob, but you're just plain mistaken on this one. Linux is
> community-owned, and it's precisely this that makes it attractive in
> the corporate world. They know that Linux can't be made useless by
> some other corporation, get bought out, or go out of business.
No, community-owned is not what makes it attractive. Free and stable is.
The fact that the majority of work done on Linux is actually done by
corporate people (Redhat, IBM, Oracle) makes it even more attractive.
If you go to a major corporation and say... Dude use my community-owned
database, you will be shown the door. Which is exactly one of the more
precise reasons that MySQL was kicking our butt in low end installations
for so long. Because it was an open source "Product" not "Project"
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
