On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 12:04 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2016, at 20:05, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> -WWW,
>>>
>>> In reviewing:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKq0gv+Gc0i8j=ktQSkMkLJmmTqUHAm=Eza7zLv+MdXCB6H+Bw@mail.gmail.com
>>>
>>> It becomes clear that they are following the Open Source way in a more
>>> transparent fashion that the other universal packages available.
>>
>>
>> In what way exactly? I can't even find the source code on the website. The
>> existing installers are on git.postgresql.org.
>>
>> The other thing to be very careful of is confusing users. Are these
>> distributions interchangeable? What happens if a user tries to upgrade one
>> with the other?
>>
>
> Good questions!
My first question was directed at you, as you made the assertion: Why
are these packages clearly more transparent and following the Open
Source way than the EDB packages?
- It's not clear they are Open Source.
- If you try to download, you get hit with a "Register Here" page, far
more in your face than I think the EDB installers have ever had (they
did have once, but it was off to one side - and is long gone
nowadays).
- The logo linking to OpenSCG's site to offer PostgreSQL services is
the PostgreSQL logo, not the OpenSCG one, which is misleading.
- On the other hand, the EDB page, whilst it does link to EDB products
and services, also has large, bold back-links to postgresql.org
resources, and makes it pretty clear what is EDB and what is .org.
- The installers themselves have similar commercial branding to the
EDB ones (e.g. "PostgreSQL, packaged by ...")
- Both distributions use the same non-OSS installer technology.
So why do you make the assertion above? What am I missing?
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company