On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:32:14PM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
> At 02:58 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >> PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan.
> >> I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer
> >> as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this
.
.
.
> >As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
> >me know.
>
> Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business
> generates income, but how it generates income.
So far, Open Source doesn't. The VA Linux IPO made ME some income,
but I'm not sure that was part of their plan...
> Your comment is the classic one tossed out by closed-source, proprietary
> software advocates who dismiss open source software out-of-hand.
>
> Couldn't you think of something better, at least? Like ... something
> original?
>
> > The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
> >a few flaws... ;)
>
> That's a horrible analogy, and I suspect you know it, but at least it is
> original.
It wasn't an analogy.
In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
--
Adam Haberlach |"California's the big burrito, Texas is the big
adam@newsnipple.com | taco ... and following that theme, Florida is
http://www.newsnipple.com| the big tamale ... and the only tamale that
'88 EX500 | counts any more." -- Dan Rather