Yes, it was a little inaccurate ;-)
However, having read the article, I think that there may just be a decent
product out at the end under a good license. Borland have always, for
better or worse (and it shows in their last couple of income statements ;-)
made a habit of putting technology before profits. I think that they're
about to do it again. However, this time, they appear to have someone who
has a reasonable understanding of what he's doing in business terms at the
head, and I think that they may just make good here, for the benefit of all
of us. Doing open source business is something that people like Bill will
never be able to understand completely. This guy seemed to almost grow up
on it, and understands it like must of us do.
Perhaps the coding is crappy, or perhaps they do what Sun did for licensing,
or something even worse.
But maybe the code is good, and the license really open, and no programmer
can get too much exposure to other peoples code, whether it's to learn how
to do things, or to learn how not to do things.
I think that PostgreSQL stands to gain an enormous amount out of the whole
episode, both in marketing, as well as guidance in certain areas, and
verification (that's not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think of the
right one now) in others.
Anyway, EXPLAIN needs some adjustments, so no more rambling...
MikeA
-----Original Message-----
From: The Hermit Hacker
To: Thomas Lockhart
Cc: Lamar Owen; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Sent: 00/01/05 08:21
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] InterBase interview on Linux Journal
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > They need to be educated about us.....
> > http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/conversations/010.html
>
> Yeah. I just sent a comment to them on this. I had talked to Marjorie
> Richards (from memory; I think that is the name) at LinuxWorld in
> August regarding Postgres articles, and she indicated that they might
> be interested in principle but that that they had recently done an
> introductory review article (nice and complimentary btw) and didn't
> have a specific need for more intro material. We have had mention in
> other articles since then, as the tool used to implement other apps.
> But it seems that Doc Searls doesn't read them very carefully ;)
Personally, I think that everyone should go to that article and put in a
comment to the effect that the Title of the article is inaccurate, and
insults the whole Open Source movement by claiming that a commercial
product, going open source, gets labelled as "The first major..."
************