Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is doing... its happening all over the comminity. Heck take a look around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe, Storm etc. etc. these companies are making good money off a business plan that was basically "hey, lets take some of that open source and make a real product out of it...". As long as they dribble releases into the community, they're not in violation... Its not a bad business model if you think about it, if you can take a product that is good (great as in PG) and add value, sell it and make money, why not? Hell, you didn't have to spend the gazillion RD dollars on the initial design and implementation, your basically reaping the rewards off of the work of other people. Are you ready for hundreds upon hundreds of little projects turning into "startup" companies? It was bound to happen. Why? because money is involved, plain and simple. Maybe its a natural progression of this stuff, who knows, I just know that I've been around the block a couple times, been in the industry too long to know that the minority voice never gets the prize... we usually set the trend and pay for it in the end... fatalistic? maybe. But not far from the truth... Sorry to be a downer... The Red Sox didn't get Mussina - Original Message - From: "Don Baccus" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ross J. Reedstrom" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL Development" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: "We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time we are considering requests from a number of development companies and venture capital groups to join us in this process." Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality suppressing the competition. Well, this is just all 'round a bad precedent and an unwelcome path for PostgreSQL, Inc to embark upon. They've also embarked on one fully proprietary product (built on PG), which means they're not an Open Source company, just a sometimes Open Source company. It's a bit ironic to learn about this on the same day I learned that Solaris 8 is being made available in source form. Sun's slowly "getting it" and moving glacially towards Open Source, while PostgreSQL, Inc. seems to be drifting in the opposite direction. if I absolutely need something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use a snapshot server. This work might be released as Open Source, but it isn't an open development scenario. The core work's not available for public scrutiny, and the details of what they're actually up don't appear to be public either. OK, they're probably funding Vadim's work on WAL, so the idictment's probably not 100% accurate - but I don't know that. I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the quasi-propriatary extensions. Which makes me wonder, is Vadim's time going to be eaten up by working on these quasi-proprietary extensions that the rest of us won't get for two years unless we become customers of Postgres, Inc? Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative, leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer. These developments are a major annoyance. - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional code, even if its dependant on something. You could consider it "propietary" and charge for it. There a tons of these things going on right now. Having dependancy on an open source product/code/functionality does not make one bound to make thier code "open source". If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what ever you want. Thats a given. I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand how anyone could think differently. The issue isn't "fairness", the issue really is really trust. And from what I'm seeing, like anything else in life, if you rely solely on trust when money is involved, the system will fail--eventually. sad... isn't it? -- http://www.mohawksoft.com
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer. I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a product had it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of. Making money? I don't know what they're plans are, but at some point I would fully expect *someone* to make money. - Original Message - From: "The Hermit Hacker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Gary MacDougall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "mlw" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Hannu Krosing" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Thomas Lockhart" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Don Baccus" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL Development" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote: If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what ever you want. Thats a given. okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to make it work ... ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the last 3 years what company that you know of didn't consider an IPO part of the "business and such". Most tech companies that have been formed in the last 4 - 5 years have one thing on the brain--IPO. It's the #1 thing (sadly) that they care about. I only wished these companies cared as much about *creating* and inovation more than they cared about going public... g. No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start, you'd have to say those people made "good money". I'm talking about the business as such, not the IPO where the price went stratospheric (we were priced like we were earning 1 or 2 billion dollars year, which was kindof weird). -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
bingo.
Not just third-party app's, but think of all the vertical products that
include PG...
I'm right now wondering if TIVO uses it?
You have to think that PG will show up in some pretty interesting money
making products...
So yes, had you not got the ball rolling well, you know what I'm saying.
g.
- Original Message -
From: "The Hermit Hacker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Gary MacDougall" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "mlw" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Hannu Krosing" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Thomas
Lockhart" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Don Baccus"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL Development"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer.
I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a
product had
it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of.
So, basically, if I hadn't pulled together Thomas, Bruce and Vadim 5 years
ago, when Jolly and Andrew finished their graduate thesis, and continued
to provide the resources required to bring PgSQL from v1.06 to now, we
wouldn't be able to use that as a basis for third party applications
... pretty much, ya, that sums it up ...
- Original Message -
From: "The Hermit Hacker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Gary MacDougall" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "mlw" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Hannu Krosing" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Thomas
Lockhart" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Don Baccus"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL Development"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do
what
ever you want.
Thats a given.
okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived
from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are
not
integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order
to
make it work ...
... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick:
Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary:
scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Re: [HACKERS] cygwin gcc problem.
Still no luck with this. I'm at a loss. Has ANYONE been able to compile PostgreSQL on Windows 2000 with the CYGWIN package? If so, I'd be glad to know what steps were taken to accomplish this. I tried Matthew's suggestions, but that didn't seem to make a difference. I'm starting to wonder now if I've got a buggy CYGWIN... My goal here is to have a decent PostgresSQL distribution for W2K, which of course I'll make available in Installation form. However, if I can't get this sucker going, its not going to happen. Thanks in advance, Gary - Original Message - From: "Matthew" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'Alfred Perlstein '" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "'Gary MacDougall '" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 1:29 PM Subject: RE: [HACKERS] cygwin gcc problem. I sucessfully compiled 7.0.2 on Win 2000 recently. I had a lot of problems when I first installed cygwin and I select default text type of DOS. When i removed cygwin, and changed that option during install it all worked (I'm not sure if I swited it from DOS to Unix, or from Unix to DOS). I'm not sure that's the problem you are having but it helped me. -Original Message- From: Alfred Perlstein To: Gary MacDougall Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11/11/00 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] cygwin gcc problem. * Gary MacDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [00 11:28] wrote: I'm trying to compile postgresql on Windows 2000. I've followed the directions accordingly. When I run the "configure" script, and I get the following error message: configure: error installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot creat e executables. If anyone has any clues, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance. I think you need to ask on the cygwin lists. If you're compiling this on Windows 2000 you already need a compiler to compile it. I would just find the binary distribution and install that. -Alfred
[HACKERS] cygwin gcc problem.
I'm trying to compile postgresql on Windows 2000. I've followed the directions accordingly. When I run the "configure" script, and I get the following error message: configure: error installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. If anyone has any clues, I'd greatly appreciate the assistance. Thanks, Gary // $ ./configureloading cache ./config.cachechecking host system type... i686-pc-cygwinchecking echo setting...checking setting template to... cygwin32configure: warning: *** Include directory /usr/local/include does not exist.checking whether to support locale... disabledchecking whether to support cyrillic recode... disabledchecking whether to support multibyte... disabledchecking setting DEF_PGPORT... 5432checking setting DEF_MAXBACKENDS... 32checking setting USE_TCL... disabledchecking setting USE_PERL... disabledchecking setting USE_ODBC... disabledchecking setproctitle... disabledchecking setting ASSERT CHECKING... disabledchecking for gcc... gccchecking whether the C compiler (gcc -O2 ) works... noconfigure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables.
