Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 23:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>>Ugh. I know I might be a little more sensitive than most on this point,
>>>but it kind of begs the question why did the supporting companies fail.
>>>Why volunteer that?
>>
>>With due respect, at least two companies (pgSQL, Inc. and Command
>>Prompt, Inc.) have a long standing stability within the open source
>>community. Actually now that I think about it, we are older than pgSQL,
>>Inc. ;). Anyway I think it would be more worth stating that
>>their is long standing, stable companies available to support PostgreSQL
>>versus the fact that PostgreSQL has survived bad VC investment (no
>>offense).
>>
>
>
> I thought about both of these points, but didn't really come up with better
> wording... i think the proper sound bite is that "support companies have come
> and gone but postgresql continues on"
How about, 'There have been instances in past where companies with postgresql as
sole core business strategy have failed. but postgresql project continued
(relatively) unaffected'
Give and take tense and plural/singulars. Talk about weasel wording..:-)
Shridhar
