Re: [HACKERS] Commercial binary support?

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(at)Yahoo(dot)com #