MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4FDDAA9F0200002500048597@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <4FDDAA9F0200002500048597@gw.wicourts.gov>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:42:41 +0800
Message-ID: 
 <CABUevEzL8DrOg_1wo2SAzqqXbD06UzL2zNUAkhgF987H9Zjf3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Some restructuring of the download section
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: dpage@pgadmin.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
>
> Dave Page =A0wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander =A0wrote:
>>>
>>>> The large bold warnings about the installers [...] should either
>>>> be removed or made non-bold now.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still
>>> correct.
>
>> I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly obvious that a
>> graphical installer isn't an RPM or DEB
>
> I think that there are an awful lot of people capable of running
> PostgreSQL who don't understand Linux packaging systems. =A0FWIW, at
> least half the tech support staff where I work would fail to assume
> that a downloaded graphical installer would not integrate the
> software in the same way that, say, the graphical "Package Manager"
> on Ubuntu or the graphical form of yast (on SUSE) does. =A0I think the
> warning is appropriate.
>
>> and that being the case it seems like clutter on the page that is
>> distracting from the more important text that's there and will
>> achieve little except cause fewer people to actually read
>> everything else.
>
> I will agree that it should probably not be bold. =A0When I pulled one
> of these pages up, it tended to be the first thing I read because it
> was the only bold item on the page -- my eye was drawn there right
> away.

True. That didn't happen to me because it happens to be right at the
edge of a page. Maybe make the "Note" part italic, and just leave the
rest as normal font could work?


> In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option
> as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and
> easy way to do this. =A0My experiences with the yum packages is that
> there are no clicks needed. =A0I type the apt-get command or pick the

Oooh.. How can I get apt-get to work with yum? ;)

(Sorry, couldn't help it)

> package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a
> running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and
> which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. =A0I think
> we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick
> one or the other.

Such as "This repository will integrate with your normal systems and
patch management, and provide automatic updates for all supported
versions of PostgreSQL throughout the support lifetime of
PostgreSQL.", which is there? ;)

Any suggestions for a wording that would be better?


> One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like PPA
> without defining them somewhere. =A0How is someone not versed in Linux
> installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether they
> should consider using one?

Well, I'd rather avoid using "Personal Package Archive", because it
sounds scary ;) As in it sounds like something that's not supported,
to those who don't know what it is. (And frankly, I think that's a big
mistake on Ubuntu's part - that it's still Personal Package Archive
even if it's stuff that comes from a team, for example.  But there's
nothing *we* can do about that.)

But I guess we could add a simple "(Personal Package Archive)" after
the term the first time, would that satisfy as a definition?

--=20
=A0Magnus Hagander
=A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/
=A0Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/