Subject: Re: Some restructuring of the download section

From: "Kevin Grittner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:59:59 -0500

[resending because I accidentally failed to copy the list]
 
Dave Page  wrote:
> Magnus Hagander  wrote:
>>
>>> 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.  FWIW, 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.  I 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.  When 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.
 
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.  My experiences with the yum packages is that
there are no clicks needed.  I type the apt-get command or pick the
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.  I think
we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick
one or the other.
 
One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like PPA
without defining them somewhere.  How is someone not versed in Linux
installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether they
should consider using one?
 
-Kevin

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:27:59 +0100

> we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick

(this is background info, not an argument against the proposed changes):

Well the whole point is that they are faster and easier to get started -
one package contains server, docs, GUI etc, and following a few clicks
everything is up and running. Personally I dislike the term 1-click
installer as it's clearly inaccurate (it's more like 5 clicks), but that's
the name that has become known and recognised.

The platform native packaging systems are marginally easier to update
(StackBuilder will update the installers), but have proven in the past to
confuse some users because it's hard to know what to install (though part
of what Magnus has done aims to make that easier), and they all install
software but don't do any of the setup for you - no initdb, no service
setup etc.

The reason the original design was implemented, and the installers were
written, is that this was a real problem that caused regular emails to
[email-masked] and other places. We reduced that to practically
zero by putting the 'no-brainer' option at the top of the page.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:39:17 +0800

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Dave Page <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Well the whole point is that they are faster and easier to get started - one

Well, you already know I disagree on this ;)

But even in those cases that they *are* easier to get started with, it
comes with a cost later on.

> confuse some users because it's hard to know what to install (though part of
> what Magnus has done aims to make that easier), and they all install
> software but don't do any of the setup for you - no initdb, no service setup
> etc.

Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages
certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on
Linux at least do service setup for you.

> zero by putting the 'no-brainer' option at the top of the page.

It's moved some of those to other lists of course, but yes, it
certainly helped to cut down the number of peopl ewho had that
problem. My hope with the redesign is to give them advice that's as
easy to use, but produce a better result (=OS integration).

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:42:41 +0800

> was the only bold item on the page -- my eye was drawn there right

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?

> there are no clicks needed.  I type the apt-get command or pick the

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

(Sorry, couldn't help it)

> we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick

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?

> 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?

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:48:51 +0100

> Linux at least do service setup for you.

Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian
(oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm
fairly certain it didn't in the past.

RPMs on the other hand, do not. You have to do something like:

yum install postgresql-server
service postgresql initdb
chkconfig postgresql on
service postgresql start

(tested on CentOS 6.2).

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:40:15 -0400

> RPMs on the other hand, do not.

FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting
servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that
an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of
servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although
it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install
scenarios.  It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you
know that the user explicitly requested this specific package.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Guillaume Lelarge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:42:10 +0200

> know that the user explicitly requested this specific package.

When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will
install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much
prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I
guess there are both pros and cons in both methods.

-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:44:24 +0800

> guess there are both pros and cons in both methods.

Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should
add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that
specific platform.

---

From: Guillaume Lelarge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:44:33 +0200

> add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that

I'm not sure this is really our responsibility. The package maintainer
should have a webpage explaining how his packages work.

-- 
Guillaume
 http://www.postgresql.fr
 http://dalibo.com

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:51:28 +0100

> should have a webpage explaining how his packages work.

It is our responsibility to some extent (unfortunately), and is
precisely what's driven this and previous designs of these pages. We
get too many confused users emailing us if it's not crystal clear how
they should install and setup binary packages (that's why the
installers were at the top of the page; they made it extremely simple
to get up and running for those that didn't bother to read past the
first couple of lines of text).

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:51:22 +0800

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:44:24 +0800, Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]<javascript:;>
> >
> wrote:
> > <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> Dave Page <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> writes:
> >>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander
> >>> > <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:
One of the main reasons for this change is that it *is* our responsibility.
People come to us to get PostgreSQL. If we can't tell them how to install
it, they turn away. This is one of the reasons why people end up using the
oneclicks even in cases where it's not a good idea - because we do tell
them how to do that ("click here, then follow the instructions").

But it is also information that we can, relatively easy, provide for the
end user, that is very valuable to those who aren't experienced in the
platform.

//Magnus

---

From: Raymond O'Donnell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:50:49 +0100

Hi all,

An aside to this discussion - is there anywhere online where one can see
the new version of the website that you're discussing? - or do you have
to have a development environment installed locally?

Thanks,

Ray.

-- 
Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland
[email-masked]

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:51:58 +0200

> to have a development environment installed locally?

that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it:

--
So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste
between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've
pushed a preview version of it up at
http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest,
password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for
me...
--

---

From: Raymond O'Donnell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:05:40 +0100

> that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it:

Thanks Magnus - I missed the first one, and only got interested recently.

Ray.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 14:31:31 +0200

> that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it:

Since there have been no further comments for a while, I've clened it
up with the latest round of comments, and pushed it to the website
now.

There's still work to be done - I'm still waiting for the updated info
from the different BSDs for example, but that's info we don't have to
day anyway, so it shouldn't stand in the way of improving the other
parts.

---

From: Palle Girgensohn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 14:54:11 +0200

Ah, sorry about the sparse BSD info, I ran out of time. I on vacation now for a while, but will try to find some time to update the info within the next couple of weeks. No computer access now for ten days...

Palle

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:40:34 -0400

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 04:27:59PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> package contains server, docs, GUI etc, and following a few clicks everything
> is up and running. Personally I dislike the term 1-click installer as it's
> clearly inaccurate (it's more like 5 clicks), but that's the name that has
> become known and recognised.

FYI, I use the term "click-through installers".

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

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +