Обсуждение: Download links
As most of you know, over the past few months I've been making incremental changes to the downloads pages to make it easier for people to find the PostgreSQL downloads they need. This included bringing together all the binary package and source options for different OS's and making them easy to browse and choose. On the homepage we have a number of links that point to the binaries section of our ftp site, to encourage people to upgrade as well as install for the first time. The problem is, most of the binaries we offer in the downloads section don't actually live on our ftp site, so for may people these links are useless and misleading. I propose we change that section of the home page to look something like: Latest Releases 8.3.3: Notes 8.2.9: Notes 8.1.13: Notes 8.0.17: Notes 7.4.21: Notes <link to /downloads>Downloads</link> RSS | Why should I upgrade? The downside is that this may lead to a couple of extra clicks for people to find what they need. The upside is that the pages they go to will almost certainly have a section for the packages they actually want, and should be more simple and easy to understand. Thoughts? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > As most of you know, over the past few months I've been making > incremental changes to the downloads pages to make it easier for > people to find the PostgreSQL downloads they need. This included > bringing together all the binary package and source options for > different OS's and making them easy to browse and choose. > I just noticed this. I'm a little surprised that the "Release Candidate" all-in-one-binaries are situated such that they're the first thing selected. I would think that RC type stuff would remain somewhere other than the download pages until it's "released", or at least indicated in a hard-to-miss manner that they're release candidate. > On the homepage we have a number of links that point to the binaries > section of our ftp site, to encourage people to upgrade as well as > install for the first time. The problem is, most of the binaries we > offer in the downloads section don't actually live on our ftp site, so > for may people these links are useless and misleading. I propose we > change that section of the home page to look something like: > > Latest Releases > > 8.3.3: Notes > 8.2.9: Notes > 8.1.13: Notes > 8.0.17: Notes > 7.4.21: Notes > > <link to /downloads>Downloads</link> > > RSS | Why should I upgrade? > > The downside is that this may lead to a couple of extra clicks for > people to find what they need. The upside is that the pages they go to > will almost certainly have a section for the packages they actually > want, and should be more simple and easy to understand. > I had to spend a bit of time hunting around to find the latest release of 8.2.x, in fact, it's not really "indicated" anywhere that "old" versions are there. Looking at the /download page, I cannot find a single reference to older versions (the big advantage to the old format). One has to hunt around until they find the "source code" link to locate an older version of postgresql. Perhaps you can simply leave it using the old style, but for the *latest* release (8.3.3 in this case) go to the new "/download" page, which allows selection from the myriad of choices available... IMHO, the new download page caters to the latest release, and provides little or no benefit to users of older PG versions... Just my 2 cents :-) thanks > Thoughts? > >
Chander Ganesan escribió: > Dave Page wrote: >> The downside is that this may lead to a couple of extra clicks for >> people to find what they need. The upside is that the pages they go to >> will almost certainly have a section for the packages they actually >> want, and should be more simple and easy to understand. >> > I had to spend a bit of time hunting around to find the latest release > of 8.2.x, in fact, it's not really "indicated" anywhere that "old" > versions are there. Looking at the /download page, I cannot find a > single reference to older versions (the big advantage to the old > format). One has to hunt around until they find the "source code" link > to locate an older version of postgresql. There's no usefulness whatsoever to the old versions, so why should they be linked to? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander.ganesan@gmail.com> wrote: > I just noticed this. I'm a little surprised that the "Release Candidate" > all-in-one-binaries are situated such that they're the first thing selected. > I would think that RC type stuff would remain somewhere other than the > download pages until it's "released", or at least indicated in a > hard-to-miss manner that they're release candidate. The ordering intentionally puts the easy to use, one size fits all above the platform specific packaging. Experience tells us that the people that have most trouble figuring out what to download tend to be the ones for whom the one-click point and drool packages are the most appropriate. The more experienced users are generally able to find the 'exact-fit' packages for their distro. The RC label is more of a disclaimer for the installers themselves than anything else (the content is all release standard). They are completely production ready imo - the ratio of downloads to issues reported has been insanely high. I will be removing the RC label for the next builds in a week or two. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Saturday 30 August 2008 15:59:41 Dave Page wrote: > The ordering intentionally puts the easy to use, one size fits all > above the platform specific packaging. Experience tells us that the > people that have most trouble figuring out what to download tend to be > the ones for whom the one-click point and drool packages are the most > appropriate. The more experienced users are generally able to find the > 'exact-fit' packages for their distro. What is concerning me is that the one-click installer is essentially a proprietary product and it is put into the prominent spot PostgreSQL -> Download -> Linux -> first choice. Now, basically everyone who wants free advertisement has to make their own one-click installer and fight with you for that spot. At the very least, the whole thing should be moved to a community-hosted infrastructure, an open development model, and no company advertisement. (For related reasons, I think the company names on the download pages should be deleted altogether.) Also, I would personally never recommend anyone using a non-distro packaged binary, which is why I am concerned that we are putting this into the prominent spot. There are good technical reasons for that recommendation. For example, if you install a nonpackaged version of libpq, none of the other packages available in your distro that depend on libpq will work. The explanation you give above is acknowledged but I don't believe it is accurate. The distro packaging should be the default even for the non-superguru user.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On Saturday 30 August 2008 15:59:41 Dave Page wrote: >> The ordering intentionally puts the easy to use, one size fits all >> above the platform specific packaging. Experience tells us that the >> people that have most trouble figuring out what to download tend to be >> the ones for whom the one-click point and drool packages are the most >> appropriate. The more experienced users are generally able to find the >> 'exact-fit' packages for their distro. > > What is concerning me is that the one-click installer is essentially a > proprietary product and it is put into the prominent spot PostgreSQL -> > Download -> Linux -> first choice. It's not proprietary - everything in it is open source, and 'as it comes'. The fact that it is where it is, is the result of numerous conversations amongst members of the web team, and even -core (bar Marc) who agreed in Ottawa that it should be added alongside the platform specific packages. > At the very least, the whole thing should be moved to a > community-hosted infrastructure I originally wanted to host it on postgresql.org, but was talked out of it by other members of the webteam who disagreed. A large part of the reason was that most other packages do not come from postgresql.org, including those from the yum repo for example. > an open development model, The only non-open aspect of it is my failure to publish the build scripts in a timely fashion. I will try to find some time for that early next week if it's important to you. > and no company advertisement. > > (For related reasons, I think the company names on the download pages should > be deleted altogether.) They were added also following discussion, as credit for those people and companies who give up their time and resources. > Also, I would personally never recommend anyone using a non-distro packaged > binary, which is why I am concerned that we are putting this into the > prominent spot. There are good technical reasons for that recommendation. > For example, if you install a nonpackaged version of libpq, none of the other > packages available in your distro that depend on libpq will work. The > explanation you give above is acknowledged but I don't believe it is > accurate. The distro packaging should be the default even for the > non-superguru user. > In an ideal Linux world I agree, but there is no way to get a consistent and simple installation across different distros due the variety of packaging systems in use and their maintainers unfortunate habit of picking and choosing what to package, how to package it, and when to package it. This is what confuses newbies and drives many people away from choosing PostgreSQL as we have discovered from others that I cannot name here. You will note, that the description beside the one-click package makes a point of stating that the problem you mention exists for precisely this reason: --- Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specific packaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or Portage integration, please use the packages below. --- I'm happy to make reasonable adjustments to that wording if you would care to suggest improvements. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I had to spend a bit of time hunting around to find the latest release >> of 8.2.x, in fact, it's not really "indicated" anywhere that "old" >> versions are there. Looking at the /download page, I cannot find a >> single reference to older versions (the big advantage to the old >> format). One has to hunt around until they find the "source code" link >> to locate an older version of postgresql. >> > > There's no usefulness whatsoever to the old versions, so why should they > be linked to? > > There are many organizations that have PostgreSQL's older versions deployed, and have yet to upgrade to the latest major release...but still have need to download the latest patch release to upgrade their installation. IMHO, for this reason the older versions are extremely important. Hence the need to link to them. All I'm saying is that there is a major decrease in usability of the site when it's not clearly documented where someone can get the latest patch version for their release. -- 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
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > All I'm saying is that there is a major decrease in usability of the site > when it's not clearly documented where someone can get the latest patch > version for their release. It never has been clearly documented, nor was it ever particularly usable due to the large number of places and ways that people get their upgrades, most of which didn't actually come from us. What is there now is designed to help people drill down to the distribution that is right for them (which the old method failed to do completely unless they ran Windows or built from source), from where they can find the distribution-specific upgrade path. For example, If you run Solaris, you Click Downloads -> Solaris -> Download and then pick the version number and architecture you need. If you run Debian, you click Downloads -> Linux where you'll see a section for Debian/APT, with links to the Debian website and Debian packages database. Just to re-iterate, some time back I did ask for contributions to improve the wording for each platform/distro. Iirc, Devrim and Peter both kindly helped out. Further suggestions are welcome. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Saturday 30 August 2008 15:59:41 Dave Page wrote: > >> The ordering intentionally puts the easy to use, one size fits all >> above the platform specific packaging. Experience tells us that the >> people that have most trouble figuring out what to download tend to be >> the ones for whom the one-click point and drool packages are the most >> appropriate. The more experienced users are generally able to find the >> 'exact-fit' packages for their distro. >> > > What is concerning me is that the one-click installer is essentially a > proprietary product and it is put into the prominent spot PostgreSQL -> > Download -> Linux -> first choice. Now, basically everyone who wants free > advertisement has to make their own one-click installer and fight with you > for that spot. At the very least, the whole thing should be moved to a > community-hosted infrastructure, an open development model, and no company > advertisement. > I wholeheartedly agree that EDB should get lots of credit for the installers they've developed, I think that it goes a long way towards improving usability of PostgreSQL, especially for folks who were stymied by complex installation and setup requirements. That being said, the issue that I see with EDB hosting is that they now have access to information about who is downloading from where, information that can be used to determine where they should advertise more heavily, what customers might be investigating PostgreSQL, and even geographical areas they should focus their marketing and product offerings. Information that isn't available to the PostgreSQL community-at-large, and information that would likely be useful for lots of other PG related companies, such as OTG, CMD, 2ndQuadrant and others. Is there even a policy with regard to what they do with this information? Does the community provide this information to the public-at-large (I suspect not, for privacy reasons)? As a side note, I see that the EDB page that hosts this is using google analytics... It gets worse when we consider the other companies that might release similar products for similar purposes, and the precedent has already been set. Just my 2 cents. :-) chander > (For related reasons, I think the company names on the download pages should > be deleted altogether.) > > Also, I would personally never recommend anyone using a non-distro packaged > binary, which is why I am concerned that we are putting this into the > prominent spot. There are good technical reasons for that recommendation. > For example, if you install a nonpackaged version of libpq, none of the other > packages available in your distro that depend on libpq will work. The > explanation you give above is acknowledged but I don't believe it is > accurate. The distro packaging should be the default even for the > non-superguru user. > -- 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
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > That being said, the issue that I see with EDB hosting is that they now have > access to information about who is downloading from where, information that > can be used to determine where they should advertise more heavily, what > customers might be investigating PostgreSQL, and even geographical areas > they should focus their marketing and product offerings. The same information that the hosts of the Yum repo, and other distributions have. That is why it was decided that EDB would host the downloads (by PG people, not EDB), despite the fact that I originally wanted to do it through postgresql.org > Information that > isn't available to the PostgreSQL community-at-large, and information that > would likely be useful for lots of other PG related companies, such as OTG, > CMD, 2ndQuadrant and others. Is there even a policy with regard to what > they do with this information? Does the community provide this information > to the public-at-large (I suspect not, for privacy reasons)? Yes, there is an unwritten policy. It basically says that if you're a listed corporate sponsor, you can have one-off traffic reports from time to time, subject to the availability of someone on the webteam to produce what you need. That will generally give far more info than EDB gets from installer downloads. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > Yes, there is an unwritten policy. It basically says that if you're a > listed corporate sponsor, you can have one-off traffic reports from > time to time, subject to the availability of someone on the webteam to > produce what you need. That will generally give far more info than EDB > gets from installer downloads. Maybe it should be a written policy because I bet Chander didn't know about it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Dave Page wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > > >> That being said, the issue that I see with EDB hosting is that they now have >> access to information about who is downloading from where, information that >> can be used to determine where they should advertise more heavily, what >> customers might be investigating PostgreSQL, and even geographical areas >> they should focus their marketing and product offerings. >> > > The same information that the hosts of the Yum repo, and other > distributions have. That is why it was decided that EDB would host the > downloads (by PG people, not EDB), despite the fact that I originally > wanted to do it through postgresql.org > So I just downloaded PostgreSQL plus, and noticed that EDB has an "information collection" page that asks for a wide range of information from the user. While this is a "permissive" form (i.e., you need not fill it out when it is downloaded), it is a form that collects user information that wouldn't be available elsewhere, and provides a significant competitive advantage to EDB... It's very targeted information that isn't generally available elsewhere. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm concerned about. Now company, Y, Z, etc. can do the same thing, or even OTG can re-package PostgreSQL and perform the same set of tasks. > >> Information that >> isn't available to the PostgreSQL community-at-large, and information that >> would likely be useful for lots of other PG related companies, such as OTG, >> CMD, 2ndQuadrant and others. Is there even a policy with regard to what >> they do with this information? Does the community provide this information >> to the public-at-large (I suspect not, for privacy reasons)? >> > > Yes, there is an unwritten policy. It basically says that if you're a > listed corporate sponsor, you can have one-off traffic reports from > time to time, subject to the availability of someone on the webteam to > produce what you need. That will generally give far more info than EDB > gets from installer downloads. > I'm sure I'll ask for this before too long :-) Unfortunately, its far less than what EDB gets through their permissive data collection mechanism. -- 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
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:19:42AM -0400, Chander Ganesan wrote: > This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm concerned about. Now company, > Y, Z, etc. can do the same thing, or even OTG can re-package PostgreSQL and > perform the same set of tasks. Yes, of course. That's just a consequence of the BSD license, no? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:19:42AM -0400, Chander Ganesan wrote: > > >> This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm concerned about. Now company, >> Y, Z, etc. can do the same thing, or even OTG can re-package PostgreSQL and >> perform the same set of tasks. >> > > Yes, of course. That's just a consequence of the BSD license, no? > Actually, I'm referring to the fact that the "de facto" method of downloading PostgreSQL now funnels folks over the EDB, where their information is collected - likely for marketing purposes. Information that provides EDB lots of information that the community-at-large isn't privy to, information that provides EDB a competitive advantage in this marketplace, simply by the virtue of packaging PostgreSQL and re-distributing it. The point I was making is that if its the community policy to let a publisher of a "packaged" version of PostgreSQL host their published package, any number of community contributors could claim the same right - where would we be then? Furthermore, I think that the current method is unfair, it's one thing to have some web stats that say who downloaded the software, it's entirely another thing to have their name, phone number, email address, and other information that can be used for direct marketing of the product. Is that information shared with the community at large? Does the community sanction the collection of such information? where does that leave the numerous other companies that provide service, support, developers, and monetary contributions to the project, but don't go to the trouble to re-package and host PostgreSQL? While I applaud the efforts of EDB to re-package PostgreSQL in a more usable form, I'm opposed to the fact that the community sends folks who want to download PostgreSQL to their site, where they ask for lots of consumer details, which provide them with a significant competitive advantage. That's information that's not available to Dextra, 2nd Quadrant, Command Prompt, OTG, or others.... In previous emails, Dave mentioned that the information that EDB has at its disposal by hosting downloads isn't much more than the information that any contributor would be able to access via Postgresql.org web reports. I think that's false - in a major way. More than half the battle is knowing who might be a potential customer.... -- 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
Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> writes: > Actually, I'm referring to the fact that the "de facto" method of > downloading PostgreSQL now funnels folks over the EDB, How do you come to that conclusion? I go to http://www.postgresql.org/download/ and what I see is a pile of links to community-supplied binaries, and a link to EDB's version, and a link to BitNami's version. (I'm sure if you asked politely there could be a link to OTG's version as well.) Where are we pushing EDB's version over the community builds? regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> writes: > >> Actually, I'm referring to the fact that the "de facto" method of >> downloading PostgreSQL now funnels folks over the EDB, >> > > How do you come to that conclusion? I go to > http://www.postgresql.org/download/ > and what I see is a pile of links to community-supplied binaries, > and a link to EDB's version, and a link to BitNami's version. > (I'm sure if you asked politely there could be a link to OTG's > version as well.) Where are we pushing EDB's version over the > community builds? > If you click on OSX, the first option is a commercial one. If you click on Linux, the first option is a commercial one (BTW, isn't it better to push the OS supplied pacakged version here?). Although, I must say I'm a bit confused. I could have sworn that on the weekend, when I tried to download the windows version, I got the one-click version with a full page asking for contact details, etc. I could be mistaken there.... My concern isn't about hosting the downloads, its more about the collection of information that would provide a significant competitive or marketing advantage to the company doing the hosting. In this case, I'm concerned about the collection of information... In fact, the only place where you download and such information is requested is the EDB site... -- 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
Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> How do you come to that conclusion? I go to >> http://www.postgresql.org/download/ >> and what I see is a pile of links to community-supplied binaries, >> and a link to EDB's version, and a link to BitNami's version. > If you click on OSX, the first option is a commercial one. > If you click on Linux, the first option is a commercial one (BTW, isn't > it better to push the OS supplied pacakged version here?). Hmm, aren't those redundant with the Postgres Plus link on the upper page? 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. regards, tom lane
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. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
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. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
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
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:06:18 -0400 Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > > 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 I am not 100% sure I agree with this, however in the interest of compromise if I go to http://www.postgresql.org/download I am presented with a list of operating systems: * FreeBSD * Linux * Mac OS X * Solaris * Windows What if that instead became: * FreeBSD * Linux * CentOS/RHEL/Fedora , * Debian * Ubuntu * SuSE * One-Click * Mac OS X * Fink * Mac Ports * Solaris * Win32 3rd Party ... This would eliminate the perceived favoritism. I think. Thoughts? > 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? Well in my opinion any and all custom installers should be a distant 5th place over any native distribution packaging. > > 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.... > Well (and I have been having this discussion with others offline) I think .Org is pandering to the commercial interests a little bit too much. I would like to see us move a little bit more to the left in terms of our "community". Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> How do you come to that conclusion? I go to >>> http://www.postgresql.org/download/ >>> and what I see is a pile of links to community-supplied binaries, >>> and a link to EDB's version, and a link to BitNami's version. > >> If you click on OSX, the first option is a commercial one. >> If you click on Linux, the first option is a commercial one (BTW, isn't >> it better to push the OS supplied pacakged version here?). > > Hmm, aren't those redundant with the Postgres Plus link on the upper > page? Postgres Plus is not the same as what's on those pages. Postgres Plus is our own distribution, whilst the one on the sub pages is modelled on the Win32 installer and is 'PostgreSQL' branded. > 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. The front page quite clearly states that Postgres Plus is a third party distribution. The 'community' pages contain only 'PostgreSQL' downloads, which come from postgresql.org, EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt, Fink, BSD Ports and a whole host of other third party sites. Each of which is labelled to say who packaged it, and their company where applicable. I'm happy to clarify that wording. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > > If you click on OSX, the first option is a commercial one. > If you click on Linux, the first option is a commercial one (BTW, isn't it > better to push the OS supplied pacakged version here?). They are not commercial. Postgres Plus is commercial. I package the PostgreSQL installers myself, in parallel with the existing Windows one, and they are entirely OS. the only difference is that they include a small logo stating they were packaged by EnterpriseDB. > Although, I must say I'm a bit confused. I could have sworn that on the > weekend, when I tried to download the windows version, I got the one-click > version with a full page asking for contact details, etc. I could be > mistaken there.... You most certainly are, and I resent the continued assertion that we require any registration for these downloads. We don't, and we never have. There is no data collection on the download page whatsoever, only on pages linked from there. If others feel that we shouldn't link to such pages from the download page, I will arrange to have them moved elsewhere. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > >> If you click on OSX, the first option is a commercial one. >> If you click on Linux, the first option is a commercial one (BTW, isn't it >> better to push the OS supplied pacakged version here?). >> > > They are not commercial. Postgres Plus is commercial. I package the > PostgreSQL installers myself, in parallel with the existing Windows > one, and they are entirely OS. the only difference is that they > include a small logo stating they were packaged by EnterpriseDB. > > >> Although, I must say I'm a bit confused. I could have sworn that on the >> weekend, when I tried to download the windows version, I got the one-click >> version with a full page asking for contact details, etc. I could be >> mistaken there.... >> > > You most certainly are, and I resent the continued assertion that we > require any registration for these downloads. We don't, and we never > have. There is no data collection on the download page whatsoever, > only on pages linked from there. If others feel that we shouldn't link > to such pages from the download page, I will arrange to have them > moved elsewhere. > My apologies. I just went through all the links, and the only page with the registration questions is the EDB PostgreSQL Plus installer (http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/postgres_plus/download.do), which is linked to from the /download page . While completion of the form isn't required (and to be clear, I've never intimated that that info was required), it is presented for every download of PG+ . That being said, I really don't have any objections to the EDB links for the /download pages for the community stuff, though IMHO, the community should be distro specific (.rpm, .deb, etc.) packages over the EDB supplied one-click packages.... -- 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
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > My apologies. I just went through all the links, and the only page with the > registration questions is the EDB PostgreSQL Plus installer > (http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/postgres_plus/download.do), which is > linked to from the /download page . While completion of the form isn't > required (and to be clear, I've never intimated that that info was > required), it is presented for every download of PG+ . Postgres Plus is our commercial distribution - and yes, we do request registration for that. Postgres Plus is *not* what the PostgreSQL downloads link to however (though there is a link in the 'third party distributions' section). > That being said, I really don't have any objections to the EDB links for the > /download pages for the community stuff, though IMHO, the community should > be distro specific (.rpm, .deb, etc.) packages over the EDB supplied > one-click packages.... The reason why they are ordered as they are is explained in more detail in a separate thread - but essentially it's because the people that need most help figuring out what they need to download are the ones that most benefit from one-click packages. Those that don't need the help, are also those that are more able to figure out what combination of RPMs/DEBs/Ports/whatever they need, and know that that type of package is what they want. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > The reason why they are ordered as they are is explained in more > detail in a separate thread - but essentially it's because the people > that need most help figuring out what they need to download are the > ones that most benefit from one-click packages. Those that don't need > the help, are also those that are more able to figure out what > combination of RPMs/DEBs/Ports/whatever they need, and know that that > type of package is what they want. > It's unfortunate that I only get to check my archive for this list occasionally, otherwise I likely would have chimed in then. I understand that it might be too late to make such changes... I'm just wondering if that makes things more difficult for newer users in the long term, who might be able to actually get upgrades to their DB without having to go through a complex process (I'm not sure how the one-clicks are upgraded, but I assume they cannot just do the package manager type upgrade). This probably won't be a real "issue" until some kind of PostgreSQL DoS, Worm, or other attack emerges, where they find themselves without a clean upgrade method (unless they learn more PG stuff...). Out of curiosity, do the one-click installers also have one-click uninstallers? That would be my other concern... -- 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
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > It's unfortunate that I only get to check my archive for this list > occasionally, otherwise I likely would have chimed in then. I understand > that it might be too late to make such changes... I'm just wondering if > that makes things more difficult for newer users in the long term, who might > be able to actually get upgrades to their DB without having to go through a > complex process (I'm not sure how the one-clicks are upgraded, but I assume > they cannot just do the package manager type upgrade). This probably won't > be a real "issue" until some kind of PostgreSQL DoS, Worm, or other attack > emerges, where they find themselves without a clean upgrade method (unless > they learn more PG stuff...). They just run the latest version of the installer to upgrade - it takes even fewer clicks than the initial install (about 4 iirc). I'm building them as part of the postgresql.org release process, so there will be no delays in getting new builds. Also, please note that on OS X, the 'one-click' installer *is* the platform standard. On there, it's MacPorts and Fink that are the alternate technologies. > > Out of curiosity, do the one-click installers also have one-click > uninstallers? That would be my other concern... Yes. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:38:29PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > (2) we move it to a section clearly labelled as "commercial distributors". We could change the name to "other", but other than that this seems to me to be a good idea. Anything hosted elsewhere can be marked this way. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:38:29PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> (2) we move it to a section clearly labelled as "commercial distributors". > > We could change the name to "other", but other than that this seems to > me to be a good idea. Anything hosted elsewhere can be marked this > way. That will have precisely the opposite effect to that which we want - namely, it will direct users to the extremely limited downloads on our own site, and away from both the one-click and distro-specific releases which virtually all come from third party sites and are what the majority of people want. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thursday 18 September 2008 07:57:29 Dave Page wrote:
> They just run the latest version of the installer to upgrade - it
> takes even fewer clicks than the initial install (about 4 iirc).
Do you handle the dump/reload process for them? (Not that I have ever seen
such methods work well, but I am curious how you handle it)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Thursday 18 September 2008 07:57:29 Dave Page wrote: >> They just run the latest version of the installer to upgrade - it >> takes even fewer clicks than the initial install (about 4 iirc). > > Do you handle the dump/reload process for them? (Not that I have ever seen > such methods work well, but I am curious how you handle it) No dump and reload would be required for the security releases Chander was referring to. For major releases, multiple versions install in parallel allowing the user to dump/reload manually, as per the Win32 installer. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com