Обсуждение: Featured users page
http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by various other resources, such as the case studies section of the website. Any objections to removing it? -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi, On Mon, September 10, 2012 1:08 pm, Dave Page wrote: > http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ > > This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by > various other resources, such as the case studies section of the > website. > > Any objections to removing it? +1 for removing. It was good for the old days that we were trying to gain some ground, but now we cannot keep track of even big users. Regards, -- Temporarily using a webmail program.
On 10 September 2012 11:15, Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, September 10, 2012 1:08 pm, Dave Page wrote: >> http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ >> >> This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by >> various other resources, such as the case studies section of the >> website. >> >> Any objections to removing it? > > +1 for removing. It was good for the old days that we were trying to gain > some ground, but now we cannot keep track of even big users. -1 for removing. Having an old list just means spammers have a hard time using it for bad things. +1 for improving and updating. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Sep 10, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote: > On 10 September 2012 11:15, Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, September 10, 2012 1:08 pm, Dave Page wrote: >>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ >>> >>> This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by >>> various other resources, such as the case studies section of the >>> website. >>> >>> Any objections to removing it? >> >> +1 for removing. It was good for the old days that we were trying to gain >> some ground, but now we cannot keep track of even big users. > > -1 for removing. Having an old list just means spammers have a hard > time using it for bad things. > > +1 for improving and updating. Agree with Simon. Perhaps make it easier to edit? Wiki perhaps? People then can either add their own companies / companiesthey hear about using Postgres at meetups or other presentations, blogs, etc.
On 9/10/12 3:08 AM, Dave Page wrote: > http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ > > This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by > various other resources, such as the case studies section of the > website. Case studies is maitained? News to me. > > Any objections to removing it? I'll want to replace it sometime in the next year, but I don't object to removing the existing page. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
> I'll want to replace it sometime in the next year, but I don't object to > removing the existing page. Actually, I'm going to contradict myself. Looking at the page, it's not nearly as out-of-date as some portions of the website. There's a few names we should remove, but the rest of the page is still valuable. There's new names we should add of course. And eventually the page should be replaced by an editable list. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10 September 2012 11:15, Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, September 10, 2012 1:08 pm, Dave Page wrote: >>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ >>> >>> This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by >>> various other resources, such as the case studies section of the >>> website. >>> >>> Any objections to removing it? >> >> +1 for removing. It was good for the old days that we were trying to gain >> some ground, but now we cannot keep track of even big users. > > -1 for removing. Having an old list just means spammers have a hard > time using it for bad things. I don't see how spammers would use it in any meaningful way - it's just a list of companies that have used PG in the past, and I'm pretty sure that's not a category of email addresses "marketing" companies get asked for a lot! :-). > +1 for improving and updating. Are you volunteering to help? This is a large part of the issue - most people get directed to the Software Catalog now, and the rest never get added to the page because it's been on the unofficial "deprecated" list for a long time. Bar a few minor updates, it hasn't really been touched in nearly 7 years. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com> wrote: > On Sep 10, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 10 September 2012 11:15, Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, September 10, 2012 1:08 pm, Dave Page wrote: >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/users/ >>>> >>>> This page hasn't been maintained in years, and is largely obsoleted by >>>> various other resources, such as the case studies section of the >>>> website. >>>> >>>> Any objections to removing it? >>> >>> +1 for removing. It was good for the old days that we were trying to gain >>> some ground, but now we cannot keep track of even big users. >> >> -1 for removing. Having an old list just means spammers have a hard >> time using it for bad things. >> >> +1 for improving and updating. > > Agree with Simon. Perhaps make it easier to edit? Wiki perhaps? People then can either add their own companies / companiesthey hear about using Postgres at meetups or other presentations, blogs, etc. I'd be fine with it being on the wiki. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 11 September 2012 03:06, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > I'd be fine with it being on the wiki. My take is its there now, its not useless, so why touch it. Web site or Wiki makes little difference, as long as its accessible from main points on website. Hidden in the Wiki won't help. Yes, it could be updated. Yes, I'm sure I can be of assistance in updating it. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11 September 2012 03:06, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> I'd be fine with it being on the wiki. > > My take is its there now, its not useless, so why touch it. I don't really see any use in it - it is out of date, and is unmaintained, and there is significant overlap with other parts of the site (case studies, software catalog, professional services/hosting etc). We get semi-regular requests to have random companies we've never heard of added to it, and invariably end up telling them no, and having to explain why. > Web site or Wiki makes little difference, as long as its accessible > from main points on website. Hidden in the Wiki won't help. It'll help in that others can easily edit it. When it's on the main website it's much harder as people need to patch files in the website framework, then get them applied. > Yes, it could be updated. Yes, I'm sure I can be of assistance in updating it. Thanks. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company