But since they pay, that makes you certified.
Good?:
I like free software, pay for services model. It's better than pay us for software, pay us to fix it model. Imagine all the budgeting and legal approvals you miss. One does not imagine Free consulting, eh?
Bad!:
I do not think highly of EJB or _any_ vendor that advocates EJBs. ANSI SQL works for me.
.V
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
"Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't you think JBoss' huge success has something to do with Sun's animosity? Every developer I know who has a say on the platform uses JBoss: better product, better documentation, better support, lower price.
Don't read me wrong: I'm on the JBoss-side on this, in that *the project* should be able to present itself on a JUG event. When comparing *JBossGroup* with the ASF however (if that would be possible at all), I partially understand Pier's reservations. This doesn't mean SunBE is right on this, however. The fact a (pardon me) marketing lowlife believes he can silently get away with that is once again a great occasion to help such people see the cluetrain is arriving.
I *would* agree if the other vendors weren't being permitted. I fail to see what compliance should have to do with it. Its a Javapolis not a J2EEpolis.
All other vendors are permitted, and all other vendors had to pay for their compliancy... Why is JBoss Group LLC different? Noone AFAIK ever told them "no you can't", I believe they were just told "please pay the fee exactly like every other vendor does".
Pier
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
