Subject: Download links

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:03:53 +0100

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

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:36:31 -0400

> 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.
> 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

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:10:52 -0400

> 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.

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:59:41 +0100

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Chander Ganesan
<[email-masked]> 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.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:50:19 +0300

> '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.

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:47:49 +0100

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.
>

They were added also following discussion, as credit for those people
and companies who give up their time and resources.

> accurate.  The distro packaging should be the default even for the

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.

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:54:23 -0400

> There's no usefulness whatsoever to the old versions, so why should they
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

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:07:33 +0100

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> 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.

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:13:39 -0400

> community-hosted infrastructure, an open development model, and no company 
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

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:58 +0100

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> 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.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:09:53 -0400 (EDT)

> gets from installer downloads.

Maybe it should be a written policy because I bet Chander didn't know
about it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:19:42 -0400

> 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.
> 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.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:05:24 -0400

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
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:44:24 -0400

> 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....

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:05:08 -0400

Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> writes:
> 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

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:17:16 -0400

> version as well.)  Where are we pushing EDB's version over the
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...

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:25:05 -0400

> 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

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:38:29 -0700

All,

> 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

---

From: Joshua Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:23:41 -0700

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:38:29 -0700
Josh Berkus <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (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

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:06:18 -0400

> 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....

---

From: Joshua Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:23:40 -0700

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:06:18 -0400
Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I think there is some confusion here. EDB does not require
> > collection of any data to download the software.

> 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

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:31:50 +0100

> Hmm, aren't those redundant with the Postgres Plus link on the upper

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.

> 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.

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:39:53 +0100

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:29:02 -0400

> to such pages from the download page, I will arrange to have them
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....

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:42:38 +0100

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> 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

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.

---

From: Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:51:11 -0400

> 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...

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:57:29 +0100

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Chander Ganesan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

> uninstallers?  That would be my other concern...

Yes.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:00:44 -0400

> (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

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:07:20 +0100

> me to be a good idea.  Anything hosted elsewhere can be marked this

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.

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:30:00 -0400

On Thursday 18 September 2008 07:57:29 Dave Page wrote:
> 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

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:49:10 +0100

> 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.