Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Commercial binary support?
Josh Berkus wrote: > Josh, Hans, et. al. > > Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY. > > Its content is no longer appropriate for the Hackers mailing list, and we get > enough traffic. Flamewars are not a part of our community. [ Moved to advocacy.] Let me try to get this discussion on the right track. Joshua Drake is saying some companies want a commercial version of PostgreSQL so they have someone to support it, while Hans is saying that makes it sound like Command Prompt is the only one supporting PostgreSQL. Hans, I don't see Josh Drake saying that having a commercial release of PostgreSQL is _required_ for a company to support PostgreSQL. In fact, he supports source installs of PostgreSQL too. He is only saying that some people prefer a commercial version of PostgreSQL because they _think_ they will get better support. I know that might not make sense, but open source is new to lots of people so maybe it makes them more comfortable. In fact, if you go into a site and install PostgreSQL, they might think you are installing _your_ version of PostgreSQL, while in fact is it the source version of PostgreSQL. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Josh, Hans, et. al. >> >> Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY. >> >> Its content is no longer appropriate for the Hackers mailing list, and we get >> enough traffic. Flamewars are not a part of our community. > > [ Moved to advocacy.] > > Let me try to get this discussion on the right track. Joshua Drake is > saying some companies want a commercial version of PostgreSQL so they > have someone to support it, while Hans is saying that makes it sound > like Command Prompt is the only one supporting PostgreSQL. > > Hans, I don't see Josh Drake saying that having a commercial release of > PostgreSQL is _required_ for a company to support PostgreSQL. In fact, > he supports source installs of PostgreSQL too. He is only saying that > some people prefer a commercial version of PostgreSQL because they > _think_ they will get better support. I know that might not make sense, > but open source is new to lots of people so maybe it makes them more > comfortable. In fact, if you go into a site and install PostgreSQL, > they might think you are installing _your_ version of PostgreSQL, while > in fact is it the source version of PostgreSQL. > I think you missed the "liability" part of Joshua Drake's mail. Using a binary installation provided by the company you have a support contract with leaves much less room for discussions about "what is supported". What "product liability" is someone talking about if he never bought any product? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck wrote: > I think you missed the "liability" part of Joshua Drake's mail. > > Using a binary installation provided by the company you have a support > contract with leaves much less room for discussions about "what is > supported". What "product liability" is someone talking about if he > never bought any product? Hey buys suport for "libability". Sure, he didn't buy a product, but you can buy a product without support too, or buy support for something that isn't a purchased product (home heater service contract). -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073