Joshua Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:38:29 -0700
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>> I tend to find this a bit misleading: both the front page and the
>>> linked-to pages give the impression that you are being pointed to
>>> community-supplied binaries. With all due respect to Dave, I agree
>>> that having to fork over identifying information to EDB is not
>>> something I want people to think the community is pushing.
>>>
>> Well, I can see two solutions:
>> (1) EDB stops collecting the information on community redirects, or
>> (2) we move it to a section clearly labelled as "commercial
>> distributors".
>>
>> (2) has the advantage that, should *more* commercial distributors
>> show up, we have a place to put them.
>>
>
> I think there is some confusion here. EDB does not require collection
> of any data to download the software.
Correct. As I said in my previous email, the information isn't
required. However, IMHO, the presentation of a form at all to collect
such information results in a significant market advantage over other
vendors that also support PostgreSQL ...its great when the develop their
leads at all, but when those leads come directly from the community
site, its a whole different story.... All things being equal, it
provides EDB with a huge competitive advantage - that many other
contributors cannot avail themselves to (for a variety of reasons). The
question being, should any vendor who chooses to package their own
installer be given a position that is preferential over other vendors
that contribute in a different (but perhaps just as beneficial to the
community) way?
I'm not sure I would classify this as an EDB related issue specifically,
it's a question that is speaks toward a general policy with regard to
how such things are handled....
--
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-463-0999/877-258-8987
http://www.otg-nc.com