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: | 2003-11-22 17:48:52 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311220946160.17003-100000@hosting.commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-11-22 18:03:02 | Re: Commercial binary support? |
Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-11-22 17:44:42 | Re: Commercial binary support? |