Thread: Re: Support (was: Democracy and organisation)
I have an slightly different perspective on this. I hope it will be a
bit useful
Background:
I'm a senior developer for a consulting firm. I too have experience
with DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, Adabase, and M$ SQL.
In the last few years of work I've been moving from the technical side
of things to be business side ( all together now: <<eewwwww> ).
I've been following PostgreSQL for a couple of years now. Absolutely
love it. I have never implemented it on a business project, though.
Not by any personal desire to use or not to use it. Usually the db
choice is out of my hands. I cannot say personally that PostgreSQL
support is amazing - ( once again, no experience at all to draw on ),
however, I've been following the lists closely enough over the last
few years that I believe the statement to be accurate. I can say that
support services from the other vendors really aren't all that
spectacular.
Perspective:
There is one factor to database choice that I haven't seen listed
here. Culpability & legal retribution. I'm not a lawyer, and don't
claim to be - so I welcome any corrections to the accuracy of the
following. Regardless of its' legal accuracy, I can vouch for the
common belief in the following thought by corporate I.T. management.
Any corporation, whether privately or publicly held, has various legal
obligations to it's shareholders. Executive officers share in both the
financial rewards of a successful company and in the legal
responsibility that the corporation has to it's shareholders.
If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of
lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary
compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to
court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made
in product literature, etc. For cases like open source projects, like
PostgreSQL, there is no legal recourse available.
So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows
chunks, and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can
prove that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V,
Company C can sue Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at
fault - because they have performed due diligence and have forged a
partnership with vendor V who has a legal responsibility for the
claims of their product.
If, however, the database was PostgreSQL, then Company C has no legal
recourse. Executive management has personally taken all responsibility
for any catastrophic software failures, and therefore have put
themselves in quite a precarious situation. No one else to take the
blame but them!
Now frankly I know that the above scenario is extreme. I was rolling
my eyes while *writing* it. But the truth is that these are the kinds
of things that technical auditors would report to a Board of
Directors. There is nothing wrong with executive management choosing
to assume risk (outside of corporate politics, that is ). Many savvy
members of management realize that the real risk is quite low. Of
course, the comfort level goes way up when the database is supporting
a non-vital business process - or a process that is several steps away
from the revenue stream.
Still - imagine a database system with data and transactional volume
the size of Google. In this case the volume of updates & inserts is
much higher. Now this database is a companies' main source of revenue
( again, extreme, but we're talking examples ). Would you blame a
corporate exec if he wasn't willing to place his own personal assets
on the line by choosing PostgreSQL over Oracle?
BTW - Oracle & other commercial vendors handle these contingencies by
buying insurance policies. If the above situation had occurred and
Oracle was the vendor, then the two companies would most likely settle
out of court by dealing with the insurer. I dunno exactly how the
claims process works on such a beast, but I know that such policies
are purchased ( and you thought the annual support fee was just to
cover the support staff's salaries?). Maybe Oracle would file a claim,
an adjuster would visit Oracle's customer, etc?
Closing:
I think PostgreSQL is a great database. I haven't explored it's good
and bad points thoroughly enough to know what applications it serves
best, and where it's weakest. I do hope to use it in enough scenarios
to find out. I hope a lawyer reads this and tells me that regardless
of what management thinks is true, the above is hog-wash. Until
someone does, I can't ignore the fact that a commercial vendor has a
legal responsibility to support the claims of their product, while an
open source group does not. I think PostgreSQL specifically keeps all
of their claims legitimate and reasonable, but that doesn't change the
fact that if someone makes an honest mistake, there is nothing that
can be done *legally* to make you correct your mistake or pay for the
damage it caused.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
<excerpt>Followup set to -advocacy
<excerpt>On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:01:18PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
<color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>Customer support is also a big
issue comparing free database systems
with commercial ones. I know that there are a couple groups that do
this, but that genre of businesses do not have a good track record of
staying in business. MS, Oracle, and IBM will be there five years down
the road to help.
</color></excerpt>
I normally wouldn't get involved in this one, since it's the sort of
thing that turns into a flamefest. And anyway, I'm not sure -hackers
is the place for it (hence the followup). But as a lowly user, I
cannot let such a comment go unanswered.
I've used several commercial products of different kinds. I've
supported various kinds of databases. I've worked (and, in fact,
currently work) in shops with all kinds of different support
agreements, including the magic-high-availability, we'll have it in 4
hours ones. I've had contracts for support that were up for renewal,
and ones that had been freshly signed with a six-month trial.
But I have never, _never_ had the sort of support that I get from the
PostgreSQL community and developers. And it has been this way ever
since I started playing with PostgreSQL some time ago, when I didn't
even know how SQL worked. I like to have commercial support, and to
be able to call on it -- we use the services of PostgreSQL, Inc. But
you cannot beat the PostgreSQL lists, nor the support directly from
the developers and other users. Everyone is unvarnished in their
assessments of flaws and their plans for what is actually going to get
programmed in. And they tell you when you're doing things wrong, and
what they are.
You cannot, from _any_ commercial enterprise, no matter how much you
are willing to pay, buy that kind of service. People find major,
showstopper bugs in the offerings of the companies you mention, and
are brushed off until some time later, when the company is good and
ready. (I had one rep of a company I won't mention actually tell me,
"Oh, so you found that bug, eh?" The way I found it was by
discovering a hole in my network so big that Hannibal and his
elephants could have walked through. But the company in question did
not think it necessary to mention this little bug until people found
it. And our NDA prevented us from mentioning it.)
Additionally, I would counsel anyone who thinks they are protected by
a large company to consider the fate of the poor Informix users these
days. Informix was once a power-house. It was a Safe Choice. But if
I were an Informix user today, I'd be spending much of my days trying
to learn DB2, or whatever. Because I would know that, sooner or
later, IBM is going to pull out the dreaded "EOL" stamp. And I'd
have to change my platform.
The "company supported" argument might make some people in suits
comfortable, but I don't believe that they have any justification for
that comfort. I'd rather talk to the guy who wrote the code.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
</excerpt>
I have an slightly different perspective on this. I hope it will be a
bit useful
Background:
I'm a senior developer for a consulting firm. I too have experience with
DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, Adabase, and M$ SQL.
In the last few years of work I've been moving from the technical side
of things to be business side ( all together now: <eewwwww> ).
I've been following PostgreSQL for a couple of years now. Absolutely
love it. I have never implemented it on a business project, though. Not
by any personal desire to use or not to use it. Usually the db choice is
out of my hands. I cannot say personally that PostgreSQL support is
amazing - ( once again, no experience at all to draw on ), however, I've
been following the lists closely enough over the last few years that I
believe the statement to be accurate. I can say that support services
from the other vendors really aren't all that spectacular.
Perspective:
There is one factor to database choice that I haven't seen listed here.
Culpability & legal retribution. I'm not a lawyer, and don't claim to
be - so I welcome any corrections to the accuracy of the following.
Regardless of its' legal accuracy, I can vouch for the common belief in
the following thought by corporate I.T. management.
Any corporation, whether privately or publicly held, has various legal
obligations to it's shareholders. Executive officers share in both the
financial rewards of a successful company and in the legal
responsibility that the corporation has to it's shareholders.
If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost
revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from
a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon
licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature,
etc. For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no
legal recourse available.
So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows
chunks, and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can
prove that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company
C can sue Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault -
because they have performed due diligence and have forged a partnership
with vendor V who has a legal responsibility for the claims of their
product.
If, however, the database was PostgreSQL, then Company C has no legal
recourse. Executive management has personally taken all responsibility
for any catastrophic software failures, and therefore have put
themselves in quite a precarious situation. No one else to take the
blame but them!
Now frankly I know that the above scenario is extreme. I was rolling my
eyes while *writing* it. But the truth is that these are the kinds of
things that technical auditors would report to a Board of Directors.
There is nothing wrong with executive management choosing to assume risk
(outside of corporate politics, that is ). Many savvy members of
management realize that the real risk is quite low. Of course, the
comfort level goes way up when the database is supporting a non-vital
business process - or a process that is several steps away from the
revenue stream.
Still - imagine a database system with data and transactional volume the
size of Google. In this case the volume of updates & inserts is much
higher. Now this database is a companies' main source of revenue
( again, extreme, but we're talking examples ). Would you blame a
corporate exec if he wasn't willing to place his own personal assets on
the line by choosing PostgreSQL over Oracle?
BTW - Oracle & other commercial vendors handle these contingencies by
buying insurance policies. If the above situation had occurred and
Oracle was the vendor, then the two companies would most likely settle
out of court by dealing with the insurer. I dunno exactly how the claims
process works on such a beast, but I know that such policies are
purchased ( and you thought the annual support fee was just to cover the
support staff's salaries?). Maybe Oracle would file a claim, an adjuster
would visit Oracle's customer, etc?
Closing:
I think PostgreSQL is a great database. I haven't explored it's good and
bad points thoroughly enough to know what applications it serves best,
and where it's weakest. I do hope to use it in enough scenarios to find
out. I hope a lawyer reads this and tells me that regardless of what
management thinks is true, the above is hog-wash. Until someone does, I
can't ignore the fact that a commercial vendor has a legal
responsibility to support the claims of their product, while an open
source group does not. I think PostgreSQL specifically keeps all of
their claims legitimate and reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact
that if someone makes an honest mistake, there is nothing that can be
done *legally* to make you correct your mistake or pay for the damage it
caused.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Followup set to -advocacy
>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:01:18PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>> Customer support is also a big issue comparing free database systems
>> with commercial ones. I know that there are a couple groups that do
>> this, but that genre of businesses do not have a good track record of
>> staying in business. MS, Oracle, and IBM will be there five years down
>> the road to help.
>
> I normally wouldn't get involved in this one, since it's the sort of
> thing that turns into a flamefest. And anyway, I'm not sure -hackers
> is the place for it (hence the followup). But as a lowly user, I
> cannot let such a comment go unanswered.
>
> I've used several commercial products of different kinds. I've
> supported various kinds of databases. I've worked (and, in fact,
> currently work) in shops with all kinds of different support
> agreements, including the magic-high-availability, we'll have it in 4
> hours ones. I've had contracts for support that were up for renewal,
> and ones that had been freshly signed with a six-month trial.
>
> But I have never, _never_ had the sort of support that I get from the
> PostgreSQL community and developers. And it has been this way ever
> since I started playing with PostgreSQL some time ago, when I didn't
> even know how SQL worked. I like to have commercial support, and to
> be able to call on it -- we use the services of PostgreSQL, Inc. But
> you cannot beat the PostgreSQL lists, nor the support directly from
> the developers and other users. Everyone is unvarnished in their
> assessments of flaws and their plans for what is actually going to get
> programmed in. And they tell you when you're doing things wrong, and
> what they are.
>
> You cannot, from _any_ commercial enterprise, no matter how much you
> are willing to pay, buy that kind of service. People find major,
> showstopper bugs in the offerings of the companies you mention, and
> are brushed off until some time later, when the company is good and
> ready. (I had one rep of a company I won't mention actually tell me,
> "Oh, so you found that bug, eh?" The way I found it was by
> discovering a hole in my network so big that Hannibal and his
> elephants could have walked through. But the company in question did
> not think it necessary to mention this little bug until people found
> it. And our NDA prevented us from mentioning it.)
>
> Additionally, I would counsel anyone who thinks they are protected by
> a large company to consider the fate of the poor Informix users these
> days. Informix was once a power-house. It was a Safe Choice. But if
> I were an Informix user today, I'd be spending much of my days trying
> to learn DB2, or whatever. Because I would know that, sooner or
> later, IBM is going to pull out the dreaded "EOL" stamp. And I'd
> have to change my platform.
>
> The "company supported" argument might make some people in suits
> comfortable, but I don't believe that they have any justification for
> that comfort. I'd rather talk to the guy who wrote the code.
>
> A
>
> --
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
> Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
> +1 416 646 3304 x110
Hmmm... I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if windoze crashes and you lose important data then you have some sort of legal recourse against Microsoft. Ever read one of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's license grants them absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim. Chris ------------------- Tim Hart Wrote: If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature, etc. For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no legal recourse available. So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows chunks, and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can prove that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company C can sue Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault - because they have performed due diligence and have forged a partnership with vendor V who has a legal responsibility for the claims of their product.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:chriskl@familyhealth.com.au] > Sent: 27 June 2002 08:08 > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tim Hart > Cc: Andrew Sullivan; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Support (was: Democracy and organisation) > > > Hmmm... > > I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if > windoze crashes and you lose important data then you have > some sort of legal recourse against Microsoft. Ever read one > of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's license grants them > absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim. I'm inclined to agree, though if it were the case, just buy Red Hat Database. Regards, Dave.
I have an slightly different perspective on this. I hope it will be a
bit useful
Background:
I'm a senior developer for a consulting firm. I too have experience
with DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, Adabase, and M$ SQL.
In the last few years of work I've been moving from the technical side
of things to be business side ( all together now: <<eewwwww> ).
I've been following PostgreSQL for a couple of years now. Absolutely
love it. I have never implemented it on a business project, though.
Not by any personal desire to use or not to use it. Usually the db
choice is out of my hands. I cannot say personally that PostgreSQL
support is amazing - ( once again, no experience at all to draw on ),
however, I've been following the lists closely enough over the last
few years that I believe the statement to be accurate. I can say that
support services from the other vendors really aren't all that
spectacular.
Perspective:
There is one factor to database choice that I haven't seen listed
here. Culpability & legal retribution. I'm not a lawyer, and don't
claim to be - so I welcome any corrections to the accuracy of the
following. Regardless of its' legal accuracy, I can vouch for the
common belief in the following thought by corporate I.T. management.
Any corporation, whether privately or publicly held, has various legal
obligations to it's shareholders. Executive officers share in both the
financial rewards of a successful company and in the legal
responsibility that the corporation has to it's shareholders.
If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of
lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary
compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to
court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made
in product literature, etc. For cases like open source projects, like
PostgreSQL, there is no legal recourse available.
So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows
chunks, and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can
prove that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V,
Company C can sue Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at
fault - because they have performed due diligence and have forged a
partnership with vendor V who has a legal responsibility for the
claims of their product.
If, however, the database was PostgreSQL, then Company C has no legal
recourse. Executive management has personally taken all responsibility
for any catastrophic software failures, and therefore have put
themselves in quite a precarious situation. No one else to take the
blame but them!
Now frankly I know that the above scenario is extreme. I was rolling
my eyes while *writing* it. But the truth is that these are the kinds
of things that technical auditors would report to a Board of
Directors. There is nothing wrong with executive management choosing
to assume risk (outside of corporate politics, that is ). Many savvy
members of management realize that the real risk is quite low. Of
course, the comfort level goes way up when the database is supporting
a non-vital business process - or a process that is several steps away
from the revenue stream.
Still - imagine a database system with data and transactional volume
the size of Google. In this case the volume of updates & inserts is
much higher. Now this database is a companies' main source of revenue
( again, extreme, but we're talking examples ). Would you blame a
corporate exec if he wasn't willing to place his own personal assets
on the line by choosing PostgreSQL over Oracle?
BTW - Oracle & other commercial vendors handle these contingencies by
buying insurance policies. If the above situation had occurred and
Oracle was the vendor, then the two companies would most likely settle
out of court by dealing with the insurer. I dunno exactly how the
claims process works on such a beast, but I know that such policies
are purchased ( and you thought the annual support fee was just to
cover the support staff's salaries?). Maybe Oracle would file a claim,
an adjuster would visit Oracle's customer, etc?
Closing:
I think PostgreSQL is a great database. I haven't explored it's good
and bad points thoroughly enough to know what applications it serves
best, and where it's weakest. I do hope to use it in enough scenarios
to find out. I hope a lawyer reads this and tells me that regardless
of what management thinks is true, the above is hog-wash. Until
someone does, I can't ignore the fact that a commercial vendor has a
legal responsibility to support the claims of their product, while an
open source group does not. I think PostgreSQL specifically keeps all
of their claims legitimate and reasonable, but that doesn't change the
fact that if someone makes an honest mistake, there is nothing that
can be done *legally* to make you correct your mistake or pay for the
damage it caused.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
<excerpt>Followup set to -advocacy
<excerpt>On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:01:18PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
<color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>Customer support is also a big
issue comparing free database systems
with commercial ones. I know that there are a couple groups that do
this, but that genre of businesses do not have a good track record of
staying in business. MS, Oracle, and IBM will be there five years down
the road to help.
</color></excerpt>
I normally wouldn't get involved in this one, since it's the sort of
thing that turns into a flamefest. And anyway, I'm not sure -hackers
is the place for it (hence the followup). But as a lowly user, I
cannot let such a comment go unanswered.
I've used several commercial products of different kinds. I've
supported various kinds of databases. I've worked (and, in fact,
currently work) in shops with all kinds of different support
agreements, including the magic-high-availability, we'll have it in 4
hours ones. I've had contracts for support that were up for renewal,
and ones that had been freshly signed with a six-month trial.
But I have never, _never_ had the sort of support that I get from the
PostgreSQL community and developers. And it has been this way ever
since I started playing with PostgreSQL some time ago, when I didn't
even know how SQL worked. I like to have commercial support, and to
be able to call on it -- we use the services of PostgreSQL, Inc. But
you cannot beat the PostgreSQL lists, nor the support directly from
the developers and other users. Everyone is unvarnished in their
assessments of flaws and their plans for what is actually going to get
programmed in. And they tell you when you're doing things wrong, and
what they are.
You cannot, from _any_ commercial enterprise, no matter how much you
are willing to pay, buy that kind of service. People find major,
showstopper bugs in the offerings of the companies you mention, and
are brushed off until some time later, when the company is good and
ready. (I had one rep of a company I won't mention actually tell me,
"Oh, so you found that bug, eh?" The way I found it was by
discovering a hole in my network so big that Hannibal and his
elephants could have walked through. But the company in question did
not think it necessary to mention this little bug until people found
it. And our NDA prevented us from mentioning it.)
Additionally, I would counsel anyone who thinks they are protected by
a large company to consider the fate of the poor Informix users these
days. Informix was once a power-house. It was a Safe Choice. But if
I were an Informix user today, I'd be spending much of my days trying
to learn DB2, or whatever. Because I would know that, sooner or
later, IBM is going to pull out the dreaded "EOL" stamp. And I'd
have to change my platform.
The "company supported" argument might make some people in suits
comfortable, but I don't believe that they have any justification for
that comfort. I'd rather talk to the guy who wrote the code.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
</excerpt>
I have an slightly different perspective on this. I hope it will be a
bit useful
Background:
I'm a senior developer for a consulting firm. I too have experience with
DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, Adabase, and M$ SQL.
In the last few years of work I've been moving from the technical side
of things to be business side ( all together now: <eewwwww> ).
I've been following PostgreSQL for a couple of years now. Absolutely
love it. I have never implemented it on a business project, though. Not
by any personal desire to use or not to use it. Usually the db choice is
out of my hands. I cannot say personally that PostgreSQL support is
amazing - ( once again, no experience at all to draw on ), however, I've
been following the lists closely enough over the last few years that I
believe the statement to be accurate. I can say that support services
from the other vendors really aren't all that spectacular.
Perspective:
There is one factor to database choice that I haven't seen listed here.
Culpability & legal retribution. I'm not a lawyer, and don't claim to
be - so I welcome any corrections to the accuracy of the following.
Regardless of its' legal accuracy, I can vouch for the common belief in
the following thought by corporate I.T. management.
Any corporation, whether privately or publicly held, has various legal
obligations to it's shareholders. Executive officers share in both the
financial rewards of a successful company and in the legal
responsibility that the corporation has to it's shareholders.
If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost
revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from
a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon
licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature,
etc. For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no
legal recourse available.
So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows
chunks, and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can
prove that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company
C can sue Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault -
because they have performed due diligence and have forged a partnership
with vendor V who has a legal responsibility for the claims of their
product.
If, however, the database was PostgreSQL, then Company C has no legal
recourse. Executive management has personally taken all responsibility
for any catastrophic software failures, and therefore have put
themselves in quite a precarious situation. No one else to take the
blame but them!
Now frankly I know that the above scenario is extreme. I was rolling my
eyes while *writing* it. But the truth is that these are the kinds of
things that technical auditors would report to a Board of Directors.
There is nothing wrong with executive management choosing to assume risk
(outside of corporate politics, that is ). Many savvy members of
management realize that the real risk is quite low. Of course, the
comfort level goes way up when the database is supporting a non-vital
business process - or a process that is several steps away from the
revenue stream.
Still - imagine a database system with data and transactional volume the
size of Google. In this case the volume of updates & inserts is much
higher. Now this database is a companies' main source of revenue
( again, extreme, but we're talking examples ). Would you blame a
corporate exec if he wasn't willing to place his own personal assets on
the line by choosing PostgreSQL over Oracle?
BTW - Oracle & other commercial vendors handle these contingencies by
buying insurance policies. If the above situation had occurred and
Oracle was the vendor, then the two companies would most likely settle
out of court by dealing with the insurer. I dunno exactly how the claims
process works on such a beast, but I know that such policies are
purchased ( and you thought the annual support fee was just to cover the
support staff's salaries?). Maybe Oracle would file a claim, an adjuster
would visit Oracle's customer, etc?
Closing:
I think PostgreSQL is a great database. I haven't explored it's good and
bad points thoroughly enough to know what applications it serves best,
and where it's weakest. I do hope to use it in enough scenarios to find
out. I hope a lawyer reads this and tells me that regardless of what
management thinks is true, the above is hog-wash. Until someone does, I
can't ignore the fact that a commercial vendor has a legal
responsibility to support the claims of their product, while an open
source group does not. I think PostgreSQL specifically keeps all of
their claims legitimate and reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact
that if someone makes an honest mistake, there is nothing that can be
done *legally* to make you correct your mistake or pay for the damage it
caused.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Followup set to -advocacy
>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:01:18PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>> Customer support is also a big issue comparing free database systems
>> with commercial ones. I know that there are a couple groups that do
>> this, but that genre of businesses do not have a good track record of
>> staying in business. MS, Oracle, and IBM will be there five years down
>> the road to help.
>
> I normally wouldn't get involved in this one, since it's the sort of
> thing that turns into a flamefest. And anyway, I'm not sure -hackers
> is the place for it (hence the followup). But as a lowly user, I
> cannot let such a comment go unanswered.
>
> I've used several commercial products of different kinds. I've
> supported various kinds of databases. I've worked (and, in fact,
> currently work) in shops with all kinds of different support
> agreements, including the magic-high-availability, we'll have it in 4
> hours ones. I've had contracts for support that were up for renewal,
> and ones that had been freshly signed with a six-month trial.
>
> But I have never, _never_ had the sort of support that I get from the
> PostgreSQL community and developers. And it has been this way ever
> since I started playing with PostgreSQL some time ago, when I didn't
> even know how SQL worked. I like to have commercial support, and to
> be able to call on it -- we use the services of PostgreSQL, Inc. But
> you cannot beat the PostgreSQL lists, nor the support directly from
> the developers and other users. Everyone is unvarnished in their
> assessments of flaws and their plans for what is actually going to get
> programmed in. And they tell you when you're doing things wrong, and
> what they are.
>
> You cannot, from _any_ commercial enterprise, no matter how much you
> are willing to pay, buy that kind of service. People find major,
> showstopper bugs in the offerings of the companies you mention, and
> are brushed off until some time later, when the company is good and
> ready. (I had one rep of a company I won't mention actually tell me,
> "Oh, so you found that bug, eh?" The way I found it was by
> discovering a hole in my network so big that Hannibal and his
> elephants could have walked through. But the company in question did
> not think it necessary to mention this little bug until people found
> it. And our NDA prevented us from mentioning it.)
>
> Additionally, I would counsel anyone who thinks they are protected by
> a large company to consider the fate of the poor Informix users these
> days. Informix was once a power-house. It was a Safe Choice. But if
> I were an Informix user today, I'd be spending much of my days trying
> to learn DB2, or whatever. Because I would know that, sooner or
> later, IBM is going to pull out the dreaded "EOL" stamp. And I'd
> have to change my platform.
>
> The "company supported" argument might make some people in suits
> comfortable, but I don't believe that they have any justification for
> that comfort. I'd rather talk to the guy who wrote the code.
>
> A
>
> --
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
> Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
> +1 416 646 3304 x110
Hmmm... I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if windoze crashes and you lose important data then you have some sort of legal recourse against Microsoft. Ever read one of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's license grants them absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim. Chris ------------------- Tim Hart Wrote: If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature, etc. For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no legal recourse available. So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows chunks, and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can prove that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company C can sue Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault - because they have performed due diligence and have forged a partnership with vendor V who has a legal responsibility for the claims of their product.
Could very well be. As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I do know that depending upon the laws in a region, EULAs can be provento be legally invalid. I do personally find it hard to believe that Oracle could be legally immune from *all* damages claims. In practice provingfault could be very hard to do ( "It was the DBA's fault - incorrect configuration", or "The OS has a bug in it"),but in general when a fee is paid for a good or service, there is an implied legal contract that at times can supercedeany EULA. The good or service provider has some legal responsibility for the accuracy of their claims regardingthe service provided, or the functionality of the project delivered. For example, the only clause that Ford Motorcompany could use in a sales contract that would absolve them from lemon laws is basically "The product you are buyingis a lemon". Your point is taken, though - I don't think one could succesfully sue Microsoft if Windows crashes from time to time. However,if M$ promises that product X is a complete COTS datacenter, and you buy X and find that X is nowhere near stableas the industry norm, you have a legal case - both for the cost of the product and in the resulting lost revenue. I probably failed to convey in my initial post that I don't think the scenario is likely. Building and maintaining a db appinvolves technical talent on the part of the client, reliable hardware, networking, appropriate facilities, blah, blah,blah. So it's likely that blame can't be placed on one thing - and no single fault is probably large enough to be outsidethe industry norms for reliability of the product. I was merely trying to convey managements mindset. I feel the thinkingis flawed as well. On Thursday, 27, 2002, at 01:08AM, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote: >Hmmm... > >I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if windoze crashes >and you lose important data then you have some sort of legal recourse >against Microsoft. Ever read one of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's >license grants them absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim. > >Chris > >------------------- > >Tim Hart Wrote: > >If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost >revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from a >commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon >licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature, etc. >For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no legal >recourse available. > >So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows chunks, >and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can prove that >the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company C can sue >Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault - because they have >performed due diligence and have forged a partnership with vendor V who has >a legal responsibility for the claims of their product. > > >
Tim, > If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of > lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary > compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to > court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made > in product literature, etc. For cases like open source projects, like > PostgreSQL, there is no legal recourse available. Well, there's the perception and the reality. I can't argue that company lawyers and auditors will *not* make the above argument; they very well may, especially if they are personally pro-MS or pro-Oracle. You may be on to something there. However, the argument is hogwash from a practical perspective. In pratice, it is nearly impossible to sue a company for bad software (witness various class actions against Microsoft). SO much so that one of the hottest-debated portions of the vastly flawed UCITA is software liability and "lemon laws". Plus in some states, the vendor's EULA (which always disclaims secondary liability) is more powerful than local consumer law. Or from a financial perspective: An enterprise MS SQL 2000 user can expect to pay, under Licensing 6.0, about $10,000 - $20,000 a year in licnesing fees -- *not including any support*. Just $2000-$5000 buys you a pretty good $10 million software failure insurance policy. Do the math. As I said, I don't disreagard your argument. Just because it's hogwash doesn't mean that people don't believe it. -Josh Berkus
On Thursday, 27, 2002, at 10:07AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >Or from a financial perspective: An enterprise MS SQL 2000 user can >expect to pay, under Licensing 6.0, about $10,000 - $20,000 a year in >licnesing fees -- *not including any support*. Just $2000-$5000 buys >you a pretty good $10 million software failure insurance policy. Do >the math. > >-Josh Berkus The statement above has brought something to light that I had never really considered... Will an insurance company issue a software failure policy against PostgreSQL? If so, that may help me in my own strugglesto convince managment that they're current approach to mitigating their risk is not only flawed, but *financiallyimpracticle*.
Is this sort of like Oracle guaranteeing its uncrackable, but as soon as someone comes to them to prove it is, Oracle's response is "but DBA didn't enable the obscure security feature that can be found here, that is disabled by default?" On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Tim Hart wrote: > Could very well be. As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I do know that depending upon the laws in a region, EULAs can be provento be legally invalid. > > I do personally find it hard to believe that Oracle could be legally immune from *all* damages claims. In practice provingfault could be very hard to do ( "It was the DBA's fault - incorrect configuration", or "The OS has a bug in it"),but in general when a fee is paid for a good or service, there is an implied legal contract that at times can supercedeany EULA. The good or service provider has some legal responsibility for the accuracy of their claims regardingthe service provided, or the functionality of the project delivered. For example, the only clause that Ford Motorcompany could use in a sales contract that would absolve them from lemon laws is basically "The product you are buyingis a lemon". > > Your point is taken, though - I don't think one could succesfully sue Microsoft if Windows crashes from time to time. However,if M$ promises that product X is a complete COTS datacenter, and you buy X and find that X is nowhere near stableas the industry norm, you have a legal case - both for the cost of the product and in the resulting lost revenue. > > I probably failed to convey in my initial post that I don't think the scenario is likely. Building and maintaining a dbapp involves technical talent on the part of the client, reliable hardware, networking, appropriate facilities, blah, blah,blah. So it's likely that blame can't be placed on one thing - and no single fault is probably large enough to be outsidethe industry norms for reliability of the product. I was merely trying to convey managements mindset. I feel the thinkingis flawed as well. > > On Thursday, 27, 2002, at 01:08AM, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote: > > >Hmmm... > > > >I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if windoze crashes > >and you lose important data then you have some sort of legal recourse > >against Microsoft. Ever read one of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's > >license grants them absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim. > > > >Chris > > > >------------------- > > > >Tim Hart Wrote: > > > >If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost > >revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from a > >commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon > >licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature, etc. > >For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no legal > >recourse available. > > > >So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows chunks, > >and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can prove that > >the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company C can sue > >Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault - because they have > >performed due diligence and have forged a partnership with vendor V who has > >a legal responsibility for the claims of their product. > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > >
Tim, > If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of > lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary > compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to > court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made > in product literature, etc. For cases like open source projects, like > PostgreSQL, there is no legal recourse available. Well, there's the perception and the reality. I can't argue that company lawyers and auditors will *not* make the above argument; they very well may, especially if they are personally pro-MS or pro-Oracle. You may be on to something there. However, the argument is hogwash from a practical perspective. In pratice, it is nearly impossible to sue a company for bad software (witness various class actions against Microsoft). SO much so that one of the hottest-debated portions of the vastly flawed UCITA is software liability and "lemon laws". Plus in some states, the vendor's EULA (which always disclaims secondary liability) is more powerful than local consumer law. Or from a financial perspective: An enterprise MS SQL 2000 user can expect to pay, under Licensing 6.0, about $10,000 - $20,000 a year in licnesing fees -- *not including any support*. Just $2000-$5000 buys you a pretty good $10 million software failure insurance policy. Do the math. As I said, I don't disreagard your argument. Just because it's hogwash doesn't mean that people don't believe it. -Josh Berkus
Is this sort of like Oracle guaranteeing its uncrackable, but as soon as someone comes to them to prove it is, Oracle's response is "but DBA didn't enable the obscure security feature that can be found here, that is disabled by default?" On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Tim Hart wrote: > Could very well be. As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I do know that depending upon the laws in a region, EULAs can be provento be legally invalid. > > I do personally find it hard to believe that Oracle could be legally immune from *all* damages claims. In practice provingfault could be very hard to do ( "It was the DBA's fault - incorrect configuration", or "The OS has a bug in it"),but in general when a fee is paid for a good or service, there is an implied legal contract that at times can supercedeany EULA. The good or service provider has some legal responsibility for the accuracy of their claims regardingthe service provided, or the functionality of the project delivered. For example, the only clause that Ford Motorcompany could use in a sales contract that would absolve them from lemon laws is basically "The product you are buyingis a lemon". > > Your point is taken, though - I don't think one could succesfully sue Microsoft if Windows crashes from time to time. However,if M$ promises that product X is a complete COTS datacenter, and you buy X and find that X is nowhere near stableas the industry norm, you have a legal case - both for the cost of the product and in the resulting lost revenue. > > I probably failed to convey in my initial post that I don't think the scenario is likely. Building and maintaining a dbapp involves technical talent on the part of the client, reliable hardware, networking, appropriate facilities, blah, blah,blah. So it's likely that blame can't be placed on one thing - and no single fault is probably large enough to be outsidethe industry norms for reliability of the product. I was merely trying to convey managements mindset. I feel the thinkingis flawed as well. > > On Thursday, 27, 2002, at 01:08AM, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote: > > >Hmmm... > > > >I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if windoze crashes > >and you lose important data then you have some sort of legal recourse > >against Microsoft. Ever read one of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's > >license grants them absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim. > > > >Chris > > > >------------------- > > > >Tim Hart Wrote: > > > >If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of lost > >revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary compensation from a > >commercial vendor. They could even be taken to court - depending upon > >licensing, product descriptions, promises made in product literature, etc. > >For cases like open source projects, like PostgreSQL, there is no legal > >recourse available. > > > >So - in the extreme case, if commercial Vendor V's database blows chunks, > >and causes company B to loose a lot of money. If Company B can prove that > >the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of Vendor V, Company C can sue > >Vendor V's a** off. Executive management isn't at fault - because they have > >performed due diligence and have forged a partnership with vendor V who has > >a legal responsibility for the claims of their product. > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > >