Alex Martelli wrote:
[...]
> Still, I'm not disputing that CA "got screwed"... though it looks like
> they did it to themselves -- they didn't stop to consider the need to
> WOO developers to actually get them onboard as a part of the overall
> deal, just sort of assumed they "came with the package
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>CA pretty clearly got screwed on this deal. They have since
>open-sourced the Ingres product.
YM "CA screwed themselves in this deal." HTH. HAND.
(That's my take based on the history of Computer Associates and a few
casual
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alex Martelli wrote:
> >> Not a bad point at all, although perhaps not entirely congruent to
> >> open
> >> source: hiring key developers has always been a possibility (net of
> >> non-compete agreements, but I'm
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>> Not a bad point at all, although perhaps not entirely congruent to
>> open
>> source: hiring key developers has always been a possibility (net of
>> non-compete agreements, but I'm told California doesn't like those).
California pl
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Nicola Musatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>
Ah, the closed source days! Back then you could just buy the company
and be done with it. Now you have to chase developers one by one all
over the world... ;-)
>>>
>>>.
>>>You propellor-head
Nicola Musatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > >Ah, the closed source days! Back then you could just buy the company
> > >and be done with it. Now you have to chase developers one by one all
> > >over the world... ;-)
> > .
> > You propellor-heads (I write that in all fond
Cameron Laird wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nicola Musatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .
> >Ah, the closed source days! Back then you could just buy the company
> >and be done with it. Now you have to chase developers one by one all
> >over the world... ;-)
>
