At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
>> few years by volunteers.
>
>imho it does not,
Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so
hard that it could only come about if someone were willing to finance a
PROPRIETARY solution. The PG developer group couldn't manage it if
it were done Open Source".
In other words, it is much harder than any of the work done by the
same group of people before they started working on proprietary
versions.
And that the only way to get them doing their best work is to put them
on proprietary, or "semi-proprietary" projects, though 24 months from
now, who's going to care? You've opened the door to IB prominence, not
only shooting PG's open source purity down in flames, but probably PG, Inc's
as well - IF IB can figure out their political problems.
IB, as it stands, is a damned good product in many ways ahead of PG. You're
giving them life by this approach, which is a kind of bizarre businees strategy.
> I *am* one of those volunteers
Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
