Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b83943$0$1586$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> 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.

You appear to be having difficulty reading what I actually wrote, and instead are making connections I never did. I did not say that 'desire to acquire' is a synonym for 'free'. I said, if anything, it was a synonym for 'sell'.

And proved, incidentally, that the dictionary does indeed allow me to make that claim.

> > 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".

The evidence was in my post, Noons. If you don't want to accept it, then fine.

> Can we stay on the subject and not search for meanings that are not there?
> A "desire to acquire" is not a good.

I didn't say it was a good.
Good grief! A 'desire to acquire' is part of the definition of the verb "to sell". As per the dictionary. As per TWO quoted dictionaries.

You don't have to like it, but the facts are there.

>Software is a good last time I looked.

As I say: the desire to acquire is part of the definition of the VERB "to sell". It's got nothing to do with goods or software. And I never said it did.

> 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...

But *you* are misreading what I wrote! And I wrote it in a crystal clear fashion.

> > 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.

I showed you how, Noons. If only I could sell you on that idea (oops.. there's me selling something, but not proposing to charge you for it). One simply needs to understand the English language, or how to use a dictionary. Or how to read a post.

> > Dictionary-wise, it's not.
>
> Sorry. It is. You pushed the definition of goods into a desire to
acquire.

I 'pushed the definition' of the VERB "to sell" into 'a desire to acquire'. (Actually, I used the dictionary definitions at all times, so there was no pushing on my part at all). The NOUN in the sentence is "free software". The noun didn't change once. I didn't "push" the noun into meaning anything, because it's the same noun at the end of my pushing as it was at the beginning of it!

I remind you again of what I wrote:

"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'."

Note that it is SELLS which is "pushed" into being "inspire a desire to acquire". NOT THE SOFTWARE!!! And hence not the goods.

> Your jump. Show me ONE dictionary that SPECIFICALLY says that free goods
=
> sold goods. You can't.

Free good remain free goods. The definitional issue here is can one VEND free goods? And yes you can. Because a vendor=a seller=one who inspires a desire to acquire. It really is very simple, if you just take a deep breath and *read what I actually wrote*.

> > 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.

Proving what? I just did a search for the precise phrase "free software vendor" and got 236 hits. We could play this particular search game till forever.

>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.

It does. I showed you it does. Selling something doesn't *necessarily* imply the movement of cash

> Furthermore, and before other discussion:
>
> 1: "free software" is NOT a synonym for Linux. Linux happens to be ONE of
the
> free software products.

I never said otherwise.

> 2: last time I looked, software != Linux, there are a few more products
> that fill the description, I'd dare say...

I never said otherwise.

> Can we now leave the Linux straw man out of this?

I didn't mention it, actually. Not in my last post at least, though I suspect I used it on my first foray into this nightmare. I mentioned a "distro" once in my last post, as an example of free software. Not as a synonym for it. If you'd prefer, I could mention Open Office, which I recently purchased from a newsagent for $14. That's free software, too, of course. I was paying for the little manual it was attached to. But the newsagent was "vending" me the free software. Linux happens to be a prime example of a piece of free software that is sold, and an example with which most people would be familiar (most IT people, anyway). That's all. This isn't about Linux. It's about language.

>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,

Imbecilic. Imbecile is a noun, and you are looking for the adjective. Especially since "This phrase" is already your noun.

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

You don't actually have a case, Noons, unless you can refute my declension of the phrase 'vendor of free software' with something other than mis-readings of it.

> > 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.

He is if you understand the full panoply of meanings that are attached to the verb "to sell". Number 6 from the OED means he can do precisely that. He may sell other things besides. Even as part of the same transaction. But yes, a vendor can indeed sell free software.

<hit eject button>

Regards
HJR Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 03:05:33 CDT