From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Austin Gonyou <austin(at)coremetrics(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Commercial binary support? |
Date: | 2003-11-19 20:09:29 |
Message-ID: | 3FBBCDF9.7080009@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
--
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(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | William Yu | 2003-11-19 20:24:27 | Re: Is there going to be a port to Solaris 9 x86 |
Previous Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-11-19 20:07:34 | Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code |