On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>> If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't
>>> worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies.
>>
>> I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming
>> to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions.
>>
>> I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have.
>> I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial
>> or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of
>> them.
>>
>> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and
>> extensions
>> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just
>> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql
>> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document.
>
> OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I
> just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to
> include.
> Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL? It just
> seems very arbitrary to include commercial software. If someone wants
> to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't
> seems as official.
Good question. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. It's basically
your judgement, tempered by other peoples feedback, though. If it
were me, I'd ask myself "Would I mention this product if it were open
source? Would mentioning it help people using the document?".
Cheers, Steve