Commercial binary support?
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?
TIA
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
If by up to date you mean 7.4, your probably going to have to wait, but
I believe that Command Prompt, dbExperts, Red Hat, and SRA all have some
type of binary based support available.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 17:19, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?TIA
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote:
If by up to date you mean 7.4, your probably going to have to wait, but
I believe that Command Prompt, dbExperts, Red Hat, and SRA all have some
type of binary based support available.
Don't forget to mention us ... ;).
Cheers,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?
Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.
We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
----
Marc G. Fournier PostgreSQL, Inc (http://www.pgsql.com)
Email: scrappy@pgsql.com Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:31, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
I agree. We shouldn't have to really care, so long as there are
guidelines for which platforms/distributions/sources are supported.
Thus, the binaries provided == all of that combined. I think that the
aforementioned requirements is easier, and more intelligent to require
of a support organization, but our dev guys were complaining a bit and
sought this as a resolution to their complaints. I don't see it being
entirely feasible, but we'll see.
----
Marc G. Fournier PostgreSQL, Inc (http://www.pgsql.com)
Email: scrappy@pgsql.com Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?
Nigel Andrews
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?Nigel Andrews
Nigel,
The name of the game is "warranty". PostgreSQL is BSD license and
therefore there is no warranty. A good support company will pick up the
risk and fix bugs, backport bugs and features, and provide "improved"
tarballs.
There is nothing special - it's just a service. However, it is a service
which is necessary because larger companies have to be sure that things
are working properly.
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.
Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.
It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?Nigel Andrews
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.orgJoshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Hello
Tell me if I am significantly wrong but Command Prompt PostgreSQL is
nothing more than "Open Source PostgreSQL" including some application
server stuff, some propriertary PL/Perl || PL/PHP and not much more.
Your anwer to this statement will be: But it is supported.
Can you tell me a reason why somebody should use a closed source version
of an Open Source product unless it contains some really significant
improvement (say native Win32 or something like that)?
Can you tell me ONE reason why this does not work for other PostgreSQL
companies such as `eval LONG LIST`?
Personally I think everybody can have its business strategy but what
REALLY sets me up is that this mail seems to mean that Command Prompt is
the only support company around which is actually WRONG!
In my opinion everybody who has enough skills can do this kind of job.
Being a support company has nothing to do with making a good Open Source
product a closed source product.
In my opinion giving something a new name and hiding away some code does
not mean commercial backing and it does not mean being the god of all
support companies.
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
Hello
Tell me if I am significantly wrong but Command Prompt PostgreSQL is
nothing more than "Open Source PostgreSQL" including some application
server stuff, some propriertary PL/Perl || PL/PHP and not much more.
Ahh no.
First our PL/Perl and PL/PHP is not propiertary in any way. It is open
source, you are free to download it and use it at your leisure.
Second we have better SSL support (although this is fixed in the
current cvs for 7.3 series)
Third we have compression over the connection stream for more
efficient connectivity over congested networks.
Also:
Included graphical management tools (also now open source, pgManage)
Modified shared memory management for better performance
A policy of a minimum of 2005 before we won't support PostgreSQL.
24 hour / 7 day support with a history of performance for the customer.
Oh... and:
Native, built in as part of the database replication.
Can you tell me a reason why somebody should use a closed source
version of an Open Source product unless it contains some really
significant improvement (say native Win32 or something like that)?
See above.
Can you tell me ONE reason why this does not work for other PostgreSQL
companies such as `eval LONG LIST`?
Personally I think everybody can have its business strategy but what
REALLY sets me up is that this mail seems to mean that Command Prompt
is the only support company around which is actually WRONG!
No... not at all, nor was that my intent. There are many good PostgreSQL
support companies. PgSQL, Inc. and Aglios come to mind. I was
just trying to provide an example of what that particular company might
be looking for. I wasn't even saying that we were the right company
for them. I was just saying what I thought they were looking for.
In my opinion everybody who has enough skills can do this kind of job.
Being a support company has nothing to do with making a good Open
Source product a closed source product.
In my opinion giving something a new name and hiding away some code
does not mean commercial backing and it does not mean being the god of
all support companies.
What in the world brought this on? I wasn't suggesting any of this. I
was just trying to help clarify the guys statement. He couldn't have
been talking about Red Hat for all I care.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Regards,
Hans
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.orgAll,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want this type of "go to" support.
I would also sincerely like to thank all who've responded as this has
given a lot of insight, I think, for all of us involved thus far. It's
good to have different perspectives, even if we don't all agree all the
time. Thanks again.
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded. There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 17:17, Austin Gonyou wrote:
All,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want this type of "go to" support.I would also sincerely like to thank all who've responded as this has
given a lot of insight, I think, for all of us involved thus far. It's
good to have different perspectives, even if we don't all agree all the
time. Thanks again.--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 17:02, Robert Treat wrote:
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded.
Well, I hear that. I think this little exercise though, is good for the
community as a whole. It's a concern I think lots of business will have,
especially as more move *away* from oracle. We don't like paying them 2M
for just licensing, and then another 200+K for "support". that's for
approximately a 1 year contract. The thing you do get from "them"
though, is a CD and a support matrix. I think most support organizations
will get to that point, even for OSS, cause it makes troubleshooting and
support *mostly* easier. But NO, I don't want to see it closed.
There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
Thanks much, and certainly not startled. I just don't like inciting a
riot, if I wasn't trying to. ;) Thanks again all.
Robert Treat
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.
That was sort of my point. I currently have a 7.3 installation for which I have
my own patches applied, for tsearch2, and for which I run my own CVS of the
cpntrob module. It seems this module isn't maintained in the community, what
with it being a 7.4 thing really. My company is the sys. admin., DBA and DB
developer for the project, except for the production server sys. admin.. These
mods weren't applied because the client was asking for them but because I knew
the faults existed, even though the project wasn't kicking them.
Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2? And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I
suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply
and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written
that I'm starting to think that should be the case.
It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?
--
Nigel Andrews
On 19 Nov 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded. There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
Some people have obviously lead a sheltered 'net existence :)
--
Nigel Andrews
Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2?
Actually to some degree, yes. Of course a lot would depend on the type
of contract you have with them you may be "responsible" for that code.
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I
suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply
and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written
that I'm starting to think that should be the case.It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?--
Nigel Andrews
--
Co-Founder
Command Prompt, Inc.
The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sure. Should be in the archive. The version for 7.4 was submitted and applied
pre-release but if you really do want the 7.3 runnable stuff I can send it. It
was only the unchecked returns from malloc and family patch in the snowball
directory. I think the original fault reporter still had problems afterwards
though, shame he didn't seem interested in persuing it or providing decent help
to find the cause.
Nigel
Oops, sorry folks. That was only meant to go to Joshua.
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
Show quoted text
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sure. Should be in the archive. The version for 7.4 was submitted and applied
...
On 2003.11.19 14:17 Austin Gonyou wrote:
All,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want this type of "go to" support.
No need to apologize Austin.
Let me answer your post also, even though I'm posting late.
We do provide binary support for PostgreSQL and any other open source product
we support even though we don't push it in advertising. When all is said and
done we're only distributing patched binaries and following the changes to
the code base.
The trick in providing binary support is that under our current business model
(cheap, standardized hourly rate), the customer needs to understand that they
are paying us for our time to apply patches, do code reviews, coding etc ...
it's not like a product you get from Oracle where the cost of maintenance is
amortized over all the customers.
The benefit to this approach, however is that our customers get exactly the
changes they want - they actually drive features development by having us
improve the base product for their specific needs.
Richard Schilling
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2?Actually to some degree, yes. Of course a lot would depend on the type
of contract you have with them you may be "responsible" for that code.
However, I would love to see those patches.
Nigel,
does tsearch2 in 7.4 still has the problem ? I apologies if we miss your
patches but certainly we're interested in clear explanation of the problem.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I
suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply
and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written
that I'm starting to think that should be the case.It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?--
Nigel Andrews
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
does tsearch2 in 7.4 still has the problem ? I apologies if we miss your
patches but certainly we're interested in clear explanation of the problem.
The problem was memory allocations made through malloc and family were not
being checked for failure before attempts made to use the memory, i.e. null
pointer dereference.
Tom or Bruce applied the patch in time for 7.4 release.
The only issue with this was noone knew how the version of tsearch2 for
PostgeSQL 7.3 was being maintained. I think I posted the patch for that to at
least one of the lists but as I am using tsearch2 on 7.3 I also threw this into
my own CVS.
In short, I don't think there's anything to worry about in relation to my
patches and 7.4.
Just to remind you though, the original fault reporter reported he was still
getting the fault after applying what I assume was my patches. Which surprised
me as I expected the fault location to be moved somewhere else. I think the
real problem he was having was that of memory exhaustion but we never got more
than basic information for this last report.
Nigel
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 11:43, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.That was sort of my point. I currently have a 7.3 installation for which I have
my own patches applied, for tsearch2, and for which I run my own CVS of the
cpntrob module. It seems this module isn't maintained in the community, what
with it being a 7.4 thing really. My company is the sys. admin., DBA and DB
developer for the project, except for the production server sys. admin.. These
mods weren't applied because the client was asking for them but because I knew
the faults existed, even though the project wasn't kicking them.
If the patches you wrote are your own, to fix a problem, and not
reviewed by the OSS community and incorporated into an OSS project/code
base, then it would be your own proprietary modification to an OSS
codebase, and thus, if not commonly accepted, becomes yours to "own" and
sell to clients, etc Then, it's not default Postgresql from the OSS
stream.
Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2? And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I
suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply
and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written
that I'm starting to think that should be the case.
The thing to remember about the above, is that if your solution
eventually gets that OSS community "approval" or review, and accepted
into an open codebase and thus incorporated into a project, with
everyone's agreement, and thus becomes standard for distribution, your
code is no longer proprietary as it was accepted as the open default
solution to a problem or whatever in an open code base.
If the latter never occurs, then I'd say, yes, you *could[read:
should?]* sell support for your modifications and call them your own
and, depending on the license used, disclose not only the changed, but
the source code to those receiving support from you for said changes.
That is, if you're at all serious about them and providing support too.
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
Josh, Hans, et. al.
Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY.
Its content is no longer appropriate for the Hackers mailing list, and we get
enough traffic. Flamewars are not a part of our community.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: E1AObqW-0008E6-7P@noon.pghoster.comReference msg id not found: E1AObqW-0008E6-7P@noon.pghoster.com | Resolved by subject fallback
Josh Berkus wrote:
Josh, Hans, et. al.
Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY.
Its content is no longer appropriate for the Hackers mailing list, and we get
enough traffic. Flamewars are not a part of our community.
[ Moved to advocacy.]
Let me try to get this discussion on the right track. Joshua Drake is
saying some companies want a commercial version of PostgreSQL so they
have someone to support it, while Hans is saying that makes it sound
like Command Prompt is the only one supporting PostgreSQL.
Hans, I don't see Josh Drake saying that having a commercial release of
PostgreSQL is _required_ for a company to support PostgreSQL. In fact,
he supports source installs of PostgreSQL too. He is only saying that
some people prefer a commercial version of PostgreSQL because they
_think_ they will get better support. I know that might not make sense,
but open source is new to lots of people so maybe it makes them more
comfortable. In fact, if you go into a site and install PostgreSQL,
they might think you are installing _your_ version of PostgreSQL, while
in fact is it the source version of PostgreSQL.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073Hans, Josh,
Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY.
Sorry. Not enough coffee this AM -- should know better than to send e-mail
when I'm short beans.
Overreacted a bit, there. Apologies.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Josh, Hans, et. al.
Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY.
Its content is no longer appropriate for the Hackers mailing list, and we get
enough traffic. Flamewars are not a part of our community.[ Moved to advocacy.]
Let me try to get this discussion on the right track. Joshua Drake is
saying some companies want a commercial version of PostgreSQL so they
have someone to support it, while Hans is saying that makes it sound
like Command Prompt is the only one supporting PostgreSQL.Hans, I don't see Josh Drake saying that having a commercial release of
PostgreSQL is _required_ for a company to support PostgreSQL. In fact,
he supports source installs of PostgreSQL too. He is only saying that
some people prefer a commercial version of PostgreSQL because they
_think_ they will get better support. I know that might not make sense,
but open source is new to lots of people so maybe it makes them more
comfortable. In fact, if you go into a site and install PostgreSQL,
they might think you are installing _your_ version of PostgreSQL, while
in fact is it the source version of PostgreSQL.
I think you missed the "liability" part of Joshua Drake's mail.
Using a binary installation provided by the company you have a support
contract with leaves much less room for discussions about "what is
supported". What "product liability" is someone talking about if he
never bought any product?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck wrote:
I think you missed the "liability" part of Joshua Drake's mail.
Using a binary installation provided by the company you have a support
contract with leaves much less room for discussions about "what is
supported". What "product liability" is someone talking about if he
never bought any product?
Hey buys suport for "libability". Sure, he didn't buy a product, but
you can buy a product without support too, or buy support for something
that isn't a purchased product (home heater service contract).
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073