Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b81c13$0$3036$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Howard J. Rogers allegedly said,on 29/05/2004 4:49 AM:
>
> > Well, merely by using definition 5 above, and never minding that this is
> > getting rather silly since it involves the actual switching off of all
the
> > usual criticial facilities with which we have been endowed, then...
>
> Precisely. That is the only way that this could stick.
>
> > The phrase "One who ... persuades me to recognise the worth or
desirability
> > of ... free software" can, by a process of one-for-one substitution, be
> > turned into the phrase "One who ... sells ... free software".
>
> Sure. By losing all meaning. I can also turn "One who ...
> persuades me to recognize the worth or desirability of ... free software"
> into "One who sells fishing goods", using PRECISELY the same inference.

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.

> > And that phrase can then be one for one substituted to become "a vendor
of
> > ... free software"
>
> Yup. Getting there is the problem.

I'm not sure what's bugging you on this one, but I'm bailing out in case it gets worse! The dictionary definitions I posted can be rephrased as 'one who sells free software' or 'a vendor of free software' without any pain or logical leaps (or not-so-subtle noun changes) at all.

> > As I say, that only requires a literal mind and a dictionary.
>
> Certainly not any of the dictionaries I have...

Confession time. The definitions I posted were from the American Heritage dictionary (yuk! But it was conveniently available at www.dictionary.com).

So let's do it again using the Oxford English Dictionary (the only decent one on the planet!):

Sell: 6 tr. a advertise or publish the merits of. b give (a person) information on the value of something, inspire with a desire to buy or acquire or agree to something.

seller // n.
1 a person who sells.

vendor // n.
1 (Law) the seller in a sale, esp. of property.

Vendor can be replaced with 'seller'. 'Seller' can be replaced with 'one who sells'. 'Sells' can be replaced with 'inspire with a desire to acquire'. Therefore, the declination of the phrase becomes:

Vendor of free software
One who sells free software
One who inspires with a desire to acquire free software

Works whatever dictionary you use, I suspect. Though all bets are off with the Macquarrie. The point is, lexically, that "vendor" does not imply the handing over of cash, necessarily. There is thus no inherent contradiction between the words "vendor" and "free".

> > But I think the real point, Noons, is that railing against a well-known
(and
> > I have to say, generallywell understood) phrase is a bit like me banging
my
> > head against a brick wall when I see the word "architected", and wish
that
> > people would just stick to "designed". It ain't gonna happen.
>
> I think you are very much wrong. I happen to believe that what is not
> gonna happen is this rubbish called "free software that is not free,
> maintained by God only knows who, and who needs and entire industry of
> tinkerers to make it do anything useful".

Whether you believe "free software" is a good thing or not is your affair, and a different matter. All I was responding to was your claim that the phrase 'a vendor of free software' is a contradiction of terms. Dictionary-wise, it's not. And rather more importantly, the phrase has a well-established meaning, at least in the IT world, 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).

As to the merits of free software or otherwise, different discussion, different matter, and not one I feel competent to join you in.

Regards
HJR Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 00:58:48 CDT