Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Howard J. Rogers allegedly said,on 29/05/2004 3:58 PM:

>
> How can you say that Noons? You've changed the noun at the end of the
> sentence, where I didn't. Only if you can make the claim that "free
> software" and "fishing goods" are substitutable can you say that. Otherwise,
> it's not "precisely" the same inference at all.

None of them make any sense. Reductio ad absurdo.

> One who inspires with a desire to acquire free software

A "desire to acquire" is not a synonym or even related to "free". The connection is yours and there is nothing in the dictionary that allows you to make it.

> The point is, lexically, that "vendor" does not imply the
> handing over of cash, necessarily.

If what you are selling is the "desire to acquire". If what you are selling is goods, the dictionary is clear as crystal: cough up moolah. Last time I looked, software is a good, not a "desire to acquire".

Can we stay on the subject and not search for meanings that are not there? A "desire to acquire" is not a good. Software is a good last time I looked. If it is a good that we are talking about,the dictionary could not be more clear: pay up. Cripes, even the Maquarie is clear on that one...

> There is thus no inherent contradiction
> between the words "vendor" and "free".

Congratulations. You just managed to redefine the entire foundation of commercial and financial transactions. Care to brush this novel theory past the economists of the entire world? I'm sure they'd LOVE to know how one can be a vendor of free goods.

> Dictionary-wise, it's not.

Sorry. It is. You pushed the definition of goods into a desire to acquire. Your jump. Show me ONE dictionary that SPECIFICALLY says that free goods = sold goods. You can't.

> And rather more importantly, the phrase has a
> well-established meaning, at least in the IT world,

Actually, it has NO established meaning whatsoever. It's not even a common phrase at all. Do a search for it SPECIFICALLY. As in "vendor of free software". You get 14 (FOURTEEN!!!!!) hits. That is NOT a well-established meaning AT ALL in ANYONE's language.

The phrase is hardly EVER used to start with. Any guesses why? Here is one: because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, and before other discussion:

1. "free software" is NOT a synonym for Linux. Linux happens to be ONE of the free software products.
2. last time I looked, software != Linux, there are a few more products that fill the description, I'd dare say...

Can we now leave the Linux straw man out of this? I did NOT ONCE imply or specifically say that I was talking about Linux, and Linux is NOT the ENTIRE free software market by ANY stretch of the imagination. I specifically asked: how does free software get sold by its vendors, as a comment to a clear claim, which I quote:

<quote>
Only vendors of free software face different factors </quote>

This phrase is imbecile, not logic, and is NOT used commonly in IT anywhere other than 14 hits in google. I rest my case.

> where the vendor is
> selling the value he's added to something which is otherwise intrinsically
> free (such as building the distro, providing technical support, maintenance
> patches and so forth).

Excellent. Couldn't agree more here. The vendor is selling their value-add. Nothing wrong with that. The vendor is NOT selling free software.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam