public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jim C. Nasby <[email protected]>
To: Shane Ambler <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:52:19 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> >OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> >functions?  Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution?  I
> >just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to include.
> >Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL?   It just
> >seems very arbitrary to include commercial software.  If someone wants
> >to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't
> >seems as official.
> 
> I agree that the commercial offerings shouldn't be named directly in the 
> docs, but it should be mentioned that some commercial options are 
> available and a starting point to find more information.
> 
> If potential new users look through the docs and it says no options 
> available for what they want or consider they will need in the future 
> then they go elsewhere, if they know that some options are available 
> then they will look further if they want that feature.
> 
> something like
> "There are currently no open source solutions available for this option 
> but there are some commercial offerings. More details of some available 
> solutions can be found at postgresql.org/support/...."

I think this is probably the best compromise. Keep in mind that many
people who are looking at us will also be looking at MySQL, which is
itself a commercial offering. It's good to let folks know that with
PostgreSQL, they have more control over how much money they spend for
commercial add-ons and support.
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            [email protected]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

view thread (117+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox