Jan,
> Now they have a "patent" on their system of rental subscription service.
> I wonder how much the guy in the patent office got paid for that. If he
> claims he got nothing, IMHO he simply claims he's less smart than a
> piece of toast ... for granting such a rubber band patent you have to
>
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dennis Gearon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Andrew Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM
> I don't see what's invalid
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:40:52AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> I have no doubt that some of those features were 'pushed to the top of the
> TODO list' due to their business case, but I can't think of any that were
> against teh desires of the community ... were there?
No, there were definite
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:14:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > There are some, but I still disagree. The biggest advantage of
> > PostgreSQL in my opinion has always been that it's a community project
> > and not driven by some commercial interests.
>
> These are not mutually exclusive. Each devel
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> The core committee has spent a fair amount of time worrying about
> exactly this issue, as first Great Bridge and later Red Hat threatened
> to become the 800-pound gorilla. As a former employee of the former and
> a current employee of the latter, I may not
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ quoting Andrew Sullivan ]
>>> I disagree. I think what PostgreSQL really needs is a few companies
>>> who are willing to underwrite a developer or two a piece. Or, maybe
>>> more precisely, _several_ companies to do that. The only thing
>>> currently
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
> There are some, but I still disagree. The biggest advantage of
> PostgreSQL in my opinion has always been that it's a community project
> and not driven by some commercial interests. I also do not agree that
> IBM is so important for Linux. IBM helps ye
