| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Wanted: new project slogan |
| Date: | 2010-01-27 22:03:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1264629838.30389.47.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 21:32 +0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Why would this be considered a good thing? Data wants to
> be secure, not liberated.
"Secure" has two potential meanings when it comes to data:
1. Hidden from those who shouldn't see it.
2. Protected from loss or corruption.
Clearly, data should be secure in the second sense, but that does not
conflict in any way with "liberation". Do you really think people will
interpret "liberate" as "the system will post your data to a mailing
list"?
I imagine liberty as the flexibility to transform, transmit, integrate,
and interpret your data using as many tools and interfaces as you can
imagine. Our flexible type system and powerful PL support allow that,
and you can use as many ACLs as you want to secure it in the first
sense.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Napier | 2010-01-27 23:17:18 | Re: Wanted: new project slogan |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-01-27 22:00:34 | Re: New Run of 4-Page Business Case? |