Re: beta testing version

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
>> signals for their future direction.
>
>Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It is a big
>job and difficult to do correctly.

Presumably what has kept it from happening in the past is that other
things were of much higher priority. Replicating a database on an
engine as unreliable as PG was in earlier incarnations would simply
replicate your problems, for instance.

This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
few years by volunteers. It also ignores the fact that folks in other
companies do get paid to work on open source software full-time without having
to resort to creating closed source, proprietary products.

> It is entirely my fault that you
>haven't seen the demo code released; I've been packaging it to make it a
>bit easier to work with.

OK, good, this part gets open sourced. Still not an open development model.
Knowing details about what's going on while code's being developed, not to mention
being able to critique decisions, is one of the major benefits of the open
development model.

>Let me be clear: PostgreSQL Inc. is owned and controlled by people who
>have lived the Open Source philosophy, which is not typical of most
>companies in business today. We are eager to show how this can be done
>on a full time basis, not only as an avocation.

Building closed source proprietary products helps you live the open source
philosophy on a full-time basis?

...

>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.

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.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.