Обсуждение: [Fwd: Re: [ANNOUNCE] spreading the word on new PostgreSQL software appliance]

Good idea!

Hey guys, can you add our project to
http://www.postgresql.org/download/?

Cheers,
Liraz

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] spreading the word on new PostgreSQL software
appliance
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:40:28 -0500
From: Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com>
To: Liraz Siri <liraz@turnkeylinux.org>
References: <493D5BFF.1070000@turnkeylinux.org>

Hi Liraz,

You might try subscribing to the pgsql-www list and asking if it can be
added as a link on the downloads page.  The downloads page has numerous
third party distributions listed for download...

-- 
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



Liraz Siri wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> One of the reasons often cited as to why MySQL is more popular than
> PostgreSQL is ease-of-use. We're hoping to help change that. We've just
> released a PostgreSQL software appliance we believe will make it easier
> for people to try out PostgreSQL and see just how far the software has
> come.
>
> Let me back up a bit...
>
> I am one of the developers for TurnKey Linux, a new opensource project
> that develops a family of lightweight installable live CDs optimized for
> various server-type tasks including LAMP, Ruby on Rails, Django, Joomla,
> Drupal, MediaWiki, and others:
>
> http://www.turnkeylinux.org/appliances
>
> This type of pre-integrated, ready-to-use system is typically called a
> software appliance:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_appliance
>
> Our project's goal is to build software appliances that are easy to use,
> easy to deploy and free. In a nutshell, we believe everything that can
> be easy, should be easy!
>
> We just released TurnKey PostgreSQL, an easy-to-use, lightweight,
> installable live CD of the PostgreSQL relational database engine that
> can run on real hardware in addition to most types of virtual machines.
> It features a Mac OS X-themed Web management interface and a Python
> configuration and installation console. It is based on Ubuntu 8.04.1
> Hardy LTS, and is designed to provide users with a pre-integrated,
> automatically updated, turn-key operating system environment that is
> carefully built from the ground up with the minimum components needed to
> run PostgreSQL with maximum usability, efficiency, and security.
>
> Key features:
>
> * auto-updated daily with latest security patches
> * MacOS X themed web management interface
> * easy to use configuration console (written from scratch in Python)
> * packaged as an installable Live CD that runs on real machines and VMs
> * minimal footprint (152MB) - includes only minimum required components
> * based on Ubuntu 8.04.1 Hardy LTS
>
> http://www.turnkeylinux.org/appliances/postgresql
>
> Check it out and tell us what you think!
>
> Also, we need help spreading
> the word that an easy-to-use PostgreSQL software appliance exists. Any
> ideas?
>
> Cheers,
> Liraz
>
>   

-- 

Website: http://www.turnkeylinux.org/
Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~liraz-siri

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Liraz Siri <liraz@turnkeylinux.org> wrote:
> Good idea!
>
> Hey guys, can you add our project to
> http://www.postgresql.org/download/?

Added. It'll show up after the next site build within a few hours.


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

"Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Liraz Siri <liraz@turnkeylinux.org> wrote:
>> Hey guys, can you add our project to
>> http://www.postgresql.org/download/?

> Added. It'll show up after the next site build within a few hours.

Pardon me, but: what the hell?  Since when is this page meant to
advertise third-party distributions of Postgres, which the community
has no control over and hasn't even quality-checked?
        regards, tom lane

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Liraz Siri <liraz@turnkeylinux.org> wrote:
>>> Hey guys, can you add our project to
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/download/?
>
>> Added. It'll show up after the next site build within a few hours.
>
> Pardon me, but: what the hell?  Since when is this page meant to
> advertise third-party distributions of Postgres, which the community
> has no control over and hasn't even quality-checked?

We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
clearly marked.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

"Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Pardon me, but: what the hell?  Since when is this page meant to
>> advertise third-party distributions of Postgres, which the community
>> has no control over and hasn't even quality-checked?

> We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
> clearly marked.

Well, I'm still desperately unhappy with the concept that all it takes
to get listed on that page is a request from someone who's not even
known in the community.  At the *minimum* we should have some kind of
commitment to push updates promptly (especially security ones) ...
which probably means someone from that group joining pgsql-packagers.

But what might be more to the point is that AFAICT Turnkey is a Linux
distro.  We don't have links here to where you get Postgres packages for
Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, etc etc.  Why should there be
one for Turnkey?
        regards, tom lane

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> But what might be more to the point is that AFAICT Turnkey is a Linux
> distro.

It's a live image, as pg_live is. It's not a distro in the traditional
sense afaict.

> We don't have links here to where you get Postgres packages for
> Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, etc etc.

Err, yes we do, if you select one of the OS pages.


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:33 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> > Pardon me, but: what the hell?  Since when is this page meant to
> > advertise third-party distributions of Postgres, which the community
> > has no control over and hasn't even quality-checked?
> 
> We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
> clearly marked.

Dave, that isn't true. In the last six months that page has become a
much more clearly defined portal for software "not" postgresql.org. Yes
we have always "supported" our partners/sponsors/tertiary projects but
never has it been so clearly in your face.

Now I am not saying we should change it (basically because I don't have
a better answer) but I do think it is important to recognize, publicly
the pandering to others we are starting to do.

Joshua D. Drake



-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:

> > We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
> > clearly marked.
> 
> Well, I'm still desperately unhappy with the concept that all it takes
> to get listed on that page is a request from someone who's not even
> known in the community.  At the *minimum* we should have some kind of
> commitment to push updates promptly (especially security ones) ...
> which probably means someone from that group joining pgsql-packagers.

I am not sure this is even relevant honestly. Its a portal page just as
google is a portal page. The ability for a project/company/person to
maintain the software they have listed is up to them not us.

Now (and we have done this in the past) if there becomes a specific
problem, say someone still pushing an 8.0 release of PostgreSQL via xyz
then yeah, we remove it when it is brought to our attention.

The exception here of course is if we deem that, that page must be
software from the .Org community. I would note that there is a large
contingent of the community that will jump up and down very loudly that
we should be aggressively embracing "all" of postgresql not just
PostgreSQL.org.

> 
> But what might be more to the point is that AFAICT Turnkey is a Linux
> distro.

Actually it is billed as an appliance not unlike the PostgreSQL Plus
stuff from EDB except that the EDB stuff does not come prepackaged with
an OS. (meaning ease of use, install, pre-configuration etc...)

>   We don't have links here to where you get Postgres packages for
> Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, etc etc.  Why should there be
> one for Turnkey?

See above.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> 
>>> We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
>>> clearly marked.
>> Well, I'm still desperately unhappy with the concept that all it takes
>> to get listed on that page is a request from someone who's not even
>> known in the community.  At the *minimum* we should have some kind of
>> commitment to push updates promptly (especially security ones) ...
>> which probably means someone from that group joining pgsql-packagers.
> 
> I am not sure this is even relevant honestly. Its a portal page just as
> google is a portal page. The ability for a project/company/person to
> maintain the software they have listed is up to them not us.

Yes, but then they should have their own web pages.

Quasi official releases should be the source release and all packagings 
that follow the pgsql-packagers routine and policies.  That we have 
pretty good control over.

Everything else is just someone's random stuff, and while I have no 
issue with that being listed somewhere on the web site, it should be a 
separate page from the quasi official releases.

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:34 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> > I am not sure this is even relevant honestly. Its a portal page just
> as
> > google is a portal page. The ability for a project/company/person to
> > maintain the software they have listed is up to them not us.
> 
> Yes, but then they should have their own web pages.
> 
> Quasi official releases should be the source release and all
> packagings 
> that follow the pgsql-packagers routine and policies.  That we have 
> pretty good control over.

This is a good argument. If you look at the page the first thing it
links to are binary packages for the core distribution. If we click the
linux link, we are not greeted with OS packages or direct download
from .Org mirrors. 

We are greeted with the EDB one click installer.

IMO, we should be pushing .Org->OS->Third Party so the page would look
like this:

Download PostgreSQL from a mirror:
    *  8.3  - Current Stable          * Source          * Binaries (Linux, Win32)
    *  7.4 - Soon to be EOL    *  8.0 - You really should upgrade    *  8.1 - Decent release    *  8.2 - Better... (see
8.3above)
 

Third Party releases and distributions:
    * EDB one click installer    * YUM Repository (Fedora/RHEL/CentOS)

Live CDs and appliances        * pg-live.info    * Turnkey linux (as an example)



> Everything else is just someone's random stuff, and while I have no 
> issue with that being listed somewhere on the web site, it should be
> a 
> separate page from the quasi official releases.

In your example Third Party releases and Live CDs would be links to
separate pages. I would be fine with that.

However there is one big problem, the YUM repository and the EDB one
click installers are very popular and provide a big service to our
community.

Do we really want to relegate them to the sundries of a secondary page?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

I'm just curious, since so many of you have such deep roots in this 
project,  are portal pages for anyone who requests a rub in the face for 
organizations that have a long commitment and feed money into the 
community for development?

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>>
>>>> We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
>>>> clearly marked.
>>> Well, I'm still desperately unhappy with the concept that all it takes
>>> to get listed on that page is a request from someone who's not even
>>> known in the community.  At the *minimum* we should have some kind of
>>> commitment to push updates promptly (especially security ones) ...
>>> which probably means someone from that group joining pgsql-packagers.
>>
>> I am not sure this is even relevant honestly. Its a portal page just as
>> google is a portal page. The ability for a project/company/person to
>> maintain the software they have listed is up to them not us.
>
> Yes, but then they should have their own web pages.
>
> Quasi official releases should be the source release and all 
> packagings that follow the pgsql-packagers routine and policies.  That 
> we have pretty good control over.
>
> Everything else is just someone's random stuff, and while I have no 
> issue with that being listed somewhere on the web site, it should be a 
> separate page from the quasi official releases.
>

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 11:57 -0500, Melanie wrote:
> I'm just curious, since so many of you have such deep roots in this 
> project,  are portal pages for anyone who requests a rub in the face for 
> organizations that have a long commitment and feed money into the 
> community for development?

The project exists for the benefit of the users first. So, if the
listing show a particular benefit to the users then it should be listed.

The mention that you make above is really controlled either via the
sponsor pages or the contributor pages (depending on context) and there
are lose but generally defined rules for both of those.

That is my take anyway.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

thanks :-) I was just curious..

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 11:57 -0500, Melanie wrote:
>   
>> I'm just curious, since so many of you have such deep roots in this 
>> project,  are portal pages for anyone who requests a rub in the face for 
>> organizations that have a long commitment and feed money into the 
>> community for development?
>>     
>
> The project exists for the benefit of the users first. So, if the
> listing show a particular benefit to the users then it should be listed.
>
> The mention that you make above is really controlled either via the
> sponsor pages or the contributor pages (depending on context) and there
> are lose but generally defined rules for both of those.
>
> That is my take anyway.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>   

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> However there is one big problem, the YUM repository and the EDB one
> click installers are very popular and provide a big service to our
> community.

> Do we really want to relegate them to the sundries of a secondary page?

To me the critical point is that those are produced by people we know
who are at least reasonably accountable to the PG community.  While I
don't wish to sound like I'm badmouthing the Turnkey folk, we don't have
any basis to believe that, for instance, they'll provide security
updates promptly.  (In fact, given that none of them are on
pgsql-packagers, we can be quite sure that they'll be somewhat behind
the curve for such things.)

I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
representative on pgsql-packagers.
        regards, tom lane

Tom,

> I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
> page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
> representative on pgsql-packagers.

That seems reasonable.  Should we invite them to list a technical contact 
for -packagers?

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL
San Francisco

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 12:04 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> > I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
> > page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
> > representative on pgsql-packagers.
> 
> That seems reasonable.  Should we invite them to list a technical contact 
> for -packagers?

I don't have a problem with this. 

Is it an invite or a requirement?

Joshua D. Drake



-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
>> page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
>> representative on pgsql-packagers.
>
> That seems reasonable.  Should we invite them to list a technical contact
> for -packagers?
>

Where is pgsql-packagers?  A list ... a site?

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 15:11 -0500, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> >> I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
> >> page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
> >> representative on pgsql-packagers.
> >
> > That seems reasonable.  Should we invite them to list a technical contact
> > for -packagers?
> >
> 
> Where is pgsql-packagers?  A list ... a site?

It is a private list for packagers. 

Joshua D. Drake


> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 15:11 -0500, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> That seems reasonable.  Should we invite them to list a technical contact
>>> for -packagers?
>> 
>> Where is pgsql-packagers?  A list ... a site?

> It is a private list for packagers. 

It's private because packagers typically hear about security issues that
aren't yet public.  We'd need the Turnkey guys to provide a contact who
(a) can keep his/her mouth shut about such issues, and (b) has the
ability and authority to get Postgres updates propagated into their
release in a timely fashion.
        regards, tom lane

Hi Tom!

> Well, I'm still desperately unhappy with the concept that all it takes
> to get listed on that page is a request from someone who's not even
> known in the community. At the *minimum* we should have some kind of
> commitment to push updates promptly (especially security ones) ...
> which probably means someone from that group joining pgsql-packagers.

TurnKey appliances are Ubuntu under the hood. We don't package postgres
ourselves. BTW, the appliances are configured to auto-install security
patches from the Ubuntu security repository daily.

> But what might be more to the point is that AFAICT Turnkey is a Linux
> distro.  We don't have links here to where you get Postgres packages for
> Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, etc etc.  Why should there be
> one for Turnkey?

I think there is a difference between a software package and a software
appliance. Users of distro X don't necessarily need to be given a link
to pgsql because their package manager takes care of that for them.

Cheers,
Liraz

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Dave, that isn't true. In the last six months that page has become a
> much more clearly defined portal for software "not" postgresql.org. Yes
> we have always "supported" our partners/sponsors/tertiary projects but
> never has it been so clearly in your face.
> 
> Now I am not saying we should change it (basically because I don't have
> a better answer) but I do think it is important to recognize, publicly
> the pandering to others we are starting to do.

Naturally I'm biased but I don't see anything wrong with informing users
of third-party installers or software appliances that might make it
easier for them to try out pgsql or use it in their environment.

I don't see how informing users is the same as pandering to others, so
long as users understand where the postgresql project ends the
third-party projects begin.

Cheers,
Liraz

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 01:17 +0200, Liraz Siri wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> > Dave, that isn't true. In the last six months that page has become a
> > much more clearly defined portal for software "not" postgresql.org. Yes
> > we have always "supported" our partners/sponsors/tertiary projects but
> > never has it been so clearly in your face.
> > 
> > Now I am not saying we should change it (basically because I don't have
> > a better answer) but I do think it is important to recognize, publicly
> > the pandering to others we are starting to do.
> 
> Naturally I'm biased but I don't see anything wrong with informing users
> of third-party installers or software appliances that might make it
> easier for them to try out pgsql or use it in their environment.

Nor do I. This was more a point about how the page appears to promote
non .Org software over .Org software, which I don't think we should do.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

Tom Lane wrote:

> To me the critical point is that those are produced by people we know
> who are at least reasonably accountable to the PG community.  While I
> don't wish to sound like I'm badmouthing the Turnkey folk, we don't have
> any basis to believe that, for instance, they'll provide security
> updates promptly.  (In fact, given that none of them are on
> pgsql-packagers, we can be quite sure that they'll be somewhat behind
> the curve for such things.)

I think Tom has a good point regarding accountability and transparency.
You don't want to list software from just anyone on the official
website. At turnkeylinux.org we've done quite a bit to increase
transparency over the last couple of months (open mailing lists,
development wiki, etc.), but there is still room for improvement. We'll
be adding a blog aggregator to the project website soon to make it
easier for everyone to get to know the people involved with our project. Note that TurnKey is an opensource project and
thatall our appliances
 
are assembled from unmodified Ubuntu binaries mostly. There are a few
exceptions and they are clearly marked in the package management system,
documented in the development wiki and have source code available in our
repository.

Regarding security updates, anyone using TurnKey appliances is likely to
be ahead of the curve since we apply them automatically on a daily basis
from the Ubuntu security repositories. If you're wondering if it's safe
to do that, Ubuntu follow Debian packaging guidelines regarding security
updates. Security patches are backported in a way that minimizes changse
to the functionality of the packages. It isn't foolproof but from our
experience it is very rare for a security update to break your system.

Cheers,
Liraz

Liraz,

> Regarding security updates, anyone using TurnKey appliances is likely to
> be ahead of the curve since we apply them automatically on a daily basis
> from the Ubuntu security repositories. If you're wondering if it's safe
> to do that, Ubuntu follow Debian packaging guidelines regarding security
> updates. Security patches are backported in a way that minimizes changse
> to the functionality of the packages. It isn't foolproof but from our
> experience it is very rare for a security update to break your system.

So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical 
contact at TurnKey?

--Josh

On Tuesday 09 December 2008 20:43:37 Josh Berkus wrote:
> Liraz,
>
> > Regarding security updates, anyone using TurnKey appliances is likely to
> > be ahead of the curve since we apply them automatically on a daily basis
> > from the Ubuntu security repositories. If you're wondering if it's safe
> > to do that, Ubuntu follow Debian packaging guidelines regarding security
> > updates. Security patches are backported in a way that minimizes changse
> > to the functionality of the packages. It isn't foolproof but from our
> > experience it is very rare for a security update to break your system.
>
> So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical
> contact at TurnKey?
>

Since turnkey doesnt update packages themselves (they just grab ubuntu feeds), 
do they need a contact for the list?  Or would that preclude them from being 
listed on the download page? (I'd also note that Robert Bernier is not on 
the -packagers list (afaik) , but he now has a distribution listed as well 
(pg_live))

-- 
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical 
> contact at TurnKey?

Liraz stated that they don't package PG themselves, just redistribute
the Ubuntu package quasi-automatically.  So they have no need to be on
pgsql-packagers.

I'm a bit bemused by what our standards for linking ought to be in a
case like this.  I still don't like the notion of "we'll link to anyone
who asks", but I can't quite see what higher standard should be imposed
for a redistribution.

(BTW, do we have Ubuntu's packager on pgsql-packagers?  I've forgotten.)
        regards, tom lane

Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Regarding security updates, anyone using TurnKey appliances is likely to
>> be ahead of the curve since we apply them automatically on a daily basis
>> from the Ubuntu security repositories. If you're wondering if it's safe
>> to do that, Ubuntu follow Debian packaging guidelines regarding security
>> updates. Security patches are backported in a way that minimizes changse
>> to the functionality of the packages. It isn't foolproof but from our
>> experience it is very rare for a security update to break your system.
> 
> So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical
> contact at TurnKey?

Well you can talk to Alon Swartz <alon@turnkeylinux.org> and you can
talk to me. Alon built the PostgreSQL appliance, but I'm more fun to
talk to. Alon mostly likes to focus on the development side while I tend
to be slightly more chatty. :)

Here are my personal details if it helps:

Liraz Siri
liraz@turnkeylinux.org

https://launchpad.net/~liraz-siri
Cell: +972-54-2013512

Cheers,
Liraz

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 22:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical 
> > contact at TurnKey?

> (BTW, do we have Ubuntu's packager on pgsql-packagers?  I've forgotten.)
> 

Yes it is the same as Debian, Martin Pitt.

Joshua D. Drake

>             regards, tom lane
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
> page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
> representative on pgsql-packagers.

That should be OK for the time being.  We do have a pgsql-packagers 
"policy" at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Packagers that says that if 
you produce proprietary things or don't keep up you will get dropped. 
So that would prevent listing commercial or out-of-date downloads.

Robert Treat wrote:
> Since turnkey doesnt update packages themselves (they just grab ubuntu feeds), 
> do they need a contact for the list?  Or would that preclude them from being 
> listed on the download page? (I'd also note that Robert Bernier is not on 
> the -packagers list (afaik) , but he now has a distribution listed as well 
> (pg_live))

Well, does he produce a new release on time for every source release? 
Or is it more like when the conference schedule calls for it?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical 
>> contact at TurnKey?
> 
> Liraz stated that they don't package PG themselves, just redistribute
> the Ubuntu package quasi-automatically.  So they have no need to be on
> pgsql-packagers.

Just because they pull *security* updates automatically doesn't make 
them fully synced with our releases.  Not every minor release becomes a 
security update in Ubuntu.

Also, I'd expect that a community-endorsed packaging also follows new 
major releases.  I don't know if we have that commitment here.

Perhaps there should be a second heading or category or page for 
appliances, pre-integrated environments and live CDs, and they are 
allowed to have a more relaxed release schedule.

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> Since turnkey doesnt update packages themselves (they just grab ubuntu
>> feeds), do they need a contact for the list?  Or would that preclude
>> them from being listed on the download page? (I'd also note that
>> Robert Bernier is not on the -packagers list (afaik) , but he now has
>> a distribution listed as well (pg_live))
> 
> Well, does he produce a new release on time for every source release? Or
> is it more like when the conference schedule calls for it?

Conference schedules? Sorry, we don't have any plans to attend any, so
we have to use a different system to determine our when to do updates.

To the point. While new releases do in fact include the latest package
updates as part of the build process, we don't need to release a new
software appliance each time a single package gets updated, because the
package manager is configured to take care of that for you. The
appliance is configured to auto-update  security patches daily, directly
from Ubuntu's security repositories.
We also have our own security repository (archive.turnkeylinux.org) but
we only issue updates for our custom packages there.

This is kind of how Ubuntu and Debian handle updates. You wouldn't
expect them to make a new release for every package that gets updated,
and it wouldn't really be very useful if they did anyhow because it
wouldn't take care of already installed systems.

Again, I'd like to stress that under the hood TurnKey appliances are
simply an Ubuntu system that has been pre-integrated and optimized to
satisfy a specific usage scenario.

Hope that clears it up!

Cheers,
Liraz

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:33 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> > Pardon me, but: what the hell?  Since when is this page meant to
>> > advertise third-party distributions of Postgres, which the community
>> > has no control over and hasn't even quality-checked?
>>
>> We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
>> clearly marked.
>
> Dave, that isn't true.

Which part? The for years? Check the SVN logs - we've listed
non-postgresql.org PostgreSQL distributions since early 2006 at least.
For *many* more years we listed all manner of additional software
there that could be classed as 'postgresql family' but that we had
zero control over.

> In the last six months that page has become a
> much more clearly defined portal for software "not" postgresql.org.

There's a good reason for that - most packages don't come from
postgresql.org, even those that are coordindated through -packagers.
postgresql.org only actually produces source, Windows and Solaris
binaries, and a handful of RPMs. The vast majority of the packages
come from elsewhere.

> Now I am not saying we should change it (basically because I don't have
> a better answer) but I do think it is important to recognize, publicly
> the pandering to others we are starting to do.

My first priority is making it easy for users to get and run
PostgreSQL. The way those pages are organised now clearly works - I
still haven't seen a 'what do I download' message on the webmaster
list since the redesign - we used to get them on an extremely regular
basis. As we discussed and before it was implemented, I also made a
point of marking the origin of each package quite clearly.

So what exactly is 'isn't true'?


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Liraz stated that they don't package PG themselves, just redistribute
>> the Ubuntu package quasi-automatically.  So they have no need to be on
>> pgsql-packagers.
> 
> Just because they pull *security* updates automatically doesn't make
> them fully synced with our releases.  Not every minor release becomes a
> security update in Ubuntu.
> 
> Also, I'd expect that a community-endorsed packaging also follows new
> major releases.  I don't know if we have that commitment here.

Here's how it works from our side. TurnKey inherits what Ubuntu
packages. Ubuntu inherit what Debian packages. Debian's policy is to
backport security fixes to update stable installations (e.g., etch)
while simultaneously staying on the cutting edge for unstable
distributions (e.g., sid).

Since we feel that TurnKey appliances which are built for server roles
should prioritize stability over cutting edge features, we only build
appliances from supposedly well-tested, stable sources with good long
term support.

Currently, all our appliances are based on Ubuntu 8.04.1 which is a LTS
(long term release) version that Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu)
has committed to supporting with updates for 5 years from the release
date.

> Perhaps there should be a second heading or category or page for
> appliances, pre-integrated environments and live CDs, and they are
> allowed to have a more relaxed release schedule.

I'd like to point out that all of your downstream users have a more
relaxed release schedule. Downstream doesn't consider the packages built
from your stable upstream releases truly stable until they have been
tested by their more adventurous userbase.

Cheers,
Liraz

Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > So, can you forward us the name & e-mail of a designated technical 
> > contact at TurnKey?
> 
> Liraz stated that they don't package PG themselves, just redistribute
> the Ubuntu package quasi-automatically.  So they have no need to be on
> pgsql-packagers.
> 
> I'm a bit bemused by what our standards for linking ought to be in a
> case like this.  I still don't like the notion of "we'll link to anyone
> who asks", but I can't quite see what higher standard should be imposed
> for a redistribution.

I hate to bring this up but --- although they download Postgres updates
from Ubuntu, because it is a live cd don't they revert with a their
CD-pressed version of Postgres every time they reboot.  :-(

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> I hate to bring this up but --- although they download Postgres updates
> from Ubuntu, because it is a live cd don't they revert with a their
> CD-pressed version of Postgres every time they reboot.  :-(

At which point they'll lose their data too. I'm not entirely convinced
that a live CD necessarily needs to be entirely up to date with the
latest bug fixes. They are after all designed for people to have a
quick play with, without needing to touch their regular OS
installation.

On the other hand, the TurnKey option does say it can run in a VM,
where presumably it would retain both updates and data.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 
> > I hate to bring this up but --- although they download Postgres updates
> > from Ubuntu, because it is a live cd don't they revert with a their
> > CD-pressed version of Postgres every time they reboot.  :-(
> 
> At which point they'll lose their data too. I'm not entirely convinced
> that a live CD necessarily needs to be entirely up to date with the
> latest bug fixes. They are after all designed for people to have a
> quick play with, without needing to touch their regular OS
> installation.
> 
> On the other hand, the TurnKey option does say it can run in a VM,
> where presumably it would retain both updates and data.

Agreed --- it just seemed odd that they would lose a security update.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I hate to bring this up but --- although they download Postgres updates
> from Ubuntu, because it is a live cd don't they revert with a their
> CD-pressed version of Postgres every time they reboot.  :-(

Actually, TurnKey appliances are packages as *installable* Live CDs. You
can run the system live from the CD, but we consider that to be useful
mostly for demo/training scenarios. For more conventional usage
scenarios, you'll want to install the software appliance into a physical
machine, or a virtual machine (e.g., we use VirtualBox for testing).

Cheers,
Liraz

On Wednesday 10 December 2008 03:31:54 Liraz Siri wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> >> Since turnkey doesnt update packages themselves (they just grab ubuntu
> >> feeds), do they need a contact for the list?  Or would that preclude
> >> them from being listed on the download page? (I'd also note that
> >> Robert Bernier is not on the -packagers list (afaik) , but he now has
> >> a distribution listed as well (pg_live))
> >
> > Well, does he produce a new release on time for every source release? Or
> > is it more like when the conference schedule calls for it?
>
> Conference schedules? Sorry, we don't have any plans to attend any, so
> we have to use a different system to determine our when to do updates.
>

Peter was reffering to Robert, who maintains pg_live, which is often 
distributed at various conferences.  

Robert (now that you are CC'd on this), what is your policy for new releases 
of pg_live (especially with regards to security updates). 

> To the point. While new releases do in fact include the latest package
> updates as part of the build process, we don't need to release a new
> software appliance each time a single package gets updated, because the
> package manager is configured to take care of that for you. The
> appliance is configured to auto-update  security patches daily, directly
> from Ubuntu's security repositories.
> We also have our own security repository (archive.turnkeylinux.org) but
> we only issue updates for our custom packages there.
>
> This is kind of how Ubuntu and Debian handle updates. You wouldn't
> expect them to make a new release for every package that gets updated,
> and it wouldn't really be very useful if they did anyhow because it
> wouldn't take care of already installed systems.
>
> Again, I'd like to stress that under the hood TurnKey appliances are
> simply an Ubuntu system that has been pre-integrated and optimized to
> satisfy a specific usage scenario.
>

It certainly clarifies your process, now I think we just need to decide what, 
if any, relationship there needs to be between folks listed on the download 
page, and who needs to be on -packagers. 

-- 
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

On Wednesday 10 December 2008 03:11:23 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines for listing on our downloads
> > page ought to be, but I think we should have some.  At minimum a
> > representative on pgsql-packagers.
>
> That should be OK for the time being.  We do have a pgsql-packagers
> "policy" at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Packagers that says that if
> you produce proprietary things or don't keep up you will get dropped.
> So that would prevent listing commercial or out-of-date downloads.

Hmm... wasn't aware we discriminated against proprietary packagers. I'd think 
companies like truviso and greenplum (and edb if they had different people in 
charge) would all be interested in rolling out security updates asap, and all 
have distributions of some level of popularity where it's in .org's best 
interest to make sure they stay updated (edb the most, though again they get 
the insider info anyway). 

-- 
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Robert Treat
<xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Hmm... wasn't aware we discriminated against proprietary packagers. I'd think
> companies like truviso and greenplum (and edb if they had different people in
> charge) would all be interested in rolling out security updates asap,

What's that supposed to mean? We bust a gut to get the PostgreSQL and
Postgres Plus standard server updates released on release day, and
Advanced Server usually follows within a week or so (due to the
additional QA requirements).


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:14 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > Since turnkey doesnt update packages themselves (they just grab ubuntu feeds), 
> > do they need a contact for the list?  Or would that preclude them from being 
> > listed on the download page? (I'd also note that Robert Bernier is not on 
> > the -packagers list (afaik) , but he now has a distribution listed as well 
> > (pg_live))
> 
> Well, does he produce a new release on time for every source release? 

The current release is 8.3.5 *shrug*

> Or is it more like when the conference schedule calls for it?
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:21 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

> Also, I'd expect that a community-endorsed packaging also follows new 
> major releases.  I don't know if we have that commitment here.

Can't do that, we would have to drop SUSE and RedHat.

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 16:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Robert Treat
> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hmm... wasn't aware we discriminated against proprietary packagers. I'd think
> > companies like truviso and greenplum (and edb if they had different people in
> > charge) would all be interested in rolling out security updates asap,
> 
> What's that supposed to mean?

Exactly what you write below.

>  We bust a gut to get the PostgreSQL and
> Postgres Plus standard server updates released on release day, and
> Advanced Server usually follows within a week or so (due to the
> additional QA requirements).
> 

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 16:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Robert Treat
>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm... wasn't aware we discriminated against proprietary packagers. I'd think
>> > companies like truviso and greenplum (and edb if they had different people in
>> > charge) would all be interested in rolling out security updates asap,
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean?
>
> Exactly what you write below.

I must be suffering brain failure because I read it as saying Truvisio
and GreenPlum would be interested in rolling out security updates
asap, and EDB would with different people in charge, meaning that we
aren't with the current management - which is certainly not true.

>>  We bust a gut to get the PostgreSQL and
>> Postgres Plus standard server updates released on release day, and
>> Advanced Server usually follows within a week or so (due to the
>> additional QA requirements).
>>
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
> --
> PostgreSQL
>   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
>   503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
>   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
>
>



-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 17:06 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 16:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Robert Treat
> >> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hmm... wasn't aware we discriminated against proprietary packagers. I'd think
> >> > companies like truviso and greenplum (and edb if they had different people in
> >> > charge) would all be interested in rolling out security updates asap,
> >>
> >> What's that supposed to mean?
> >
> > Exactly what you write below.
> 
> I must be suffering brain failure because I read it as saying Truvisio
> and GreenPlum would be interested in rolling out security updates
> asap, and EDB would with different people in charge, meaning that we
> aren't with the current management - which is certainly not true.

That isn't how I read it. I read it as since EDB has insider knowledge
(which they obviously do) that they do keep up and that they would also
try to keep up even if they didn't.

*shrug*

Joshua D. Drake


> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

Dave Page wrote:

> I must be suffering brain failure because I read it as saying Truvisio
> and GreenPlum would be interested in rolling out security updates
> asap, and EDB would with different people in charge, meaning that we
> aren't with the current management - which is certainly not true.

I read it as "different people managing the commercial package than the
open source package".

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 16:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Robert Treat
>>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm... wasn't aware we discriminated against proprietary packagers. I'd think
>>>> companies like truviso and greenplum (and edb if they had different people in
>>>> charge) would all be interested in rolling out security updates asap,
>>> What's that supposed to mean?
>> Exactly what you write below.
> 
> I must be suffering brain failure because I read it as saying Truvisio
> and GreenPlum would be interested in rolling out security updates
> asap, and EDB would with different people in charge, meaning that we
> aren't with the current management - which is certainly not true.

FWIW, I read it as if EDB *didn't already have people there for other
reasons*, they'd also be interested in being on packagers.

But reading it after what you wrote I realise it can probably be read
either way :-)

//Magnus

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:18 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:

> FWIW, I read it as if EDB *didn't already have people there for other
> reasons*, they'd also be interested in being on packagers.
> 
> But reading it after what you wrote I realise it can probably be read
> either way :-)

No that I read it again I see that what Robert really meant was,

EDB is a covert CIA organization that is secrectly trying to take over
the world and form the Allied States of America.

Or was that Jericho season 2?

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> //Magnus
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 

> Well you can talk to Alon Swartz <alon@turnkeylinux.org> and you can
> talk to me. Alon built the PostgreSQL appliance, but I'm more fun to
> talk to. Alon mostly likes to focus on the development side while I tend
> to be slightly more chatty. :)

Well, this is for building new releases.  We need a *confidential* 
contact who can be responsible for receiving news of security updates 
from PostgreSQL.org and building and releasing updates on a community 
schedule (or later, of course).

--Josh

> Well, this is for building new releases.  We need a *confidential*
> contact who can be responsible for receiving news of security updates
> from PostgreSQL.org and building and releasing updates on a community
> schedule (or later, of course).

I don't think we really need to be in the loop here since we inherit
pgsql packages from Ubuntu, but it would be nice to get a heads up. Its
up to you guys.

As for confidentiality, I can promise we'll oblige by whatever terms the
team specifies, but if it's a matter of trust it doesn't really make
much sense for me to be vetting myself (or Alon).

Cheers,
Liraz

On Wednesday 10 December 2008 12:31:18 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:18 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >

YIKES!!

> > FWIW, I read it as if EDB *didn't already have people there for other
> > reasons*, they'd also be interested in being on packagers.
> >

Yes, this is what I meant. (!!) Since Dave does packaging for both open source 
and commercial stuff, they already get the information. If EDB had other 
people doing thier commercial packaging, they would be on the outside looking 
in according to the policy. 

> > But reading it after what you wrote I realise it can probably be read
> > either way :-)
>
> No that I read it again I see that what Robert really meant was,
>
> EDB is a covert CIA organization that is secrectly trying to take over
> the world and form the Allied States of America.
>

Hmmm.... I like this better.  Forget the above, this is what I really 
meant :-)

-- 
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

Hi Guys,

There was a bit of confusion last week regarding what TurnKey PostgreSQL
is all about. I see this is now reflected in the download page's
description:

"Live CDs

Live CDs are bootable CD images that allow you to run and play with
PostgreSQL and a selection of related tools and software, without
installing anything on your PC. Note that as complete operating systems,
these distributions may not be updated immediately when new versions of
PostgreSQL are released.

pg_live - a Xubuntu based live CD designed and optimized expressly for
the PostgreSQL Database administrator and enthusiast. Sponsored by Open
Technology Group.

TurnKey PostgreSQL - An Ubuntu based live CD featuring a Mac OS X-themed
Web management interface and a Python configuration and installation
console. Published by TurnKey Linux."

At least in regards to TurnKey PostgreSQL, this description is likely to
confuse some readers, as it has apparently confused some subscribers to
the mailing list.

Our appliance's defining feature isn't that it runs Live. That is merely
a nice feature that appeals to users who are interested in evaluating
the appliance before committing to installing it. These days it is very
common for Linux distribution of all sorts to be able to run in Live CD
mode.

TurnKey PostgreSQL is *installable* and in fact from the feedback we've
been getting running in Live CD "demo" mode is not the common usage
scenario by any means. It turns out that after demoing the appliance,
most users will install it into a physical machine or a virtual machine
(e.g., VMWare, VirtualBox, KVM)

In other words, the correct category for TurnKey PostgreSQL isn't Live
CDs, but rather "Software appliances".

A more accurate description might go something like this:

Software appliances

A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_appliance">software
appliance</a> is a pre-integrated, ready-to-use system that combines
PostgreSQL with just enough operating system for it to run optimally on
industry standard hardware or in a virtual machine.

<a href="http://www.turnkeylinux.org/appliances/postgresql">TurnKey
PostgreSQL</a> - An Ubuntu-based software appliance packaged as an
installable live CD featuring a Mac OS X-themed Web management interface
and a Python configuration and installation console. Published by <a
href="http://www.turnkeylinux.org">TurnKey Linux.</a>

What do you think, does that make any sense?

Cheers,
Liraz

Liraz Siri wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I hate to bring this up but --- although they download Postgres updates
>> from Ubuntu, because it is a live cd don't they revert with a their
>> CD-pressed version of Postgres every time they reboot.  :-(
> 
> Actually, TurnKey appliances are packages as *installable* Live CDs. You
> can run the system live from the CD, but we consider that to be useful
> mostly for demo/training scenarios. For more conventional usage
> scenarios, you'll want to install the software appliance into a physical
> machine, or a virtual machine (e.g., we use VirtualBox for testing).

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Liraz Siri <liraz@turnkeylinux.org> wrote:

> Our appliance's defining feature isn't that it runs Live. That is merely
> a nice feature that appeals to users who are interested in evaluating
> the appliance before committing to installing it. These days it is very
> common for Linux distribution of all sorts to be able to run in Live CD
> mode.
>
> TurnKey PostgreSQL is *installable* and in fact from the feedback we've
> been getting running in Live CD "demo" mode is not the common usage
> scenario by any means. It turns out that after demoing the appliance,
> most users will install it into a physical machine or a virtual machine
> (e.g., VMWare, VirtualBox, KVM)

I've clarified the wording, thanks. It'll show up within a few hours.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com