Thread

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> — 2002-12-03T20:29:48Z


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org] 
> Sent: 03 December 2002 19:12
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global 
> Development Group Announces
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Wow, this sounds great.
> >
> > Where can I get a copy?  Why would anyone use anything else?  ;-)
> 
> Well, if you read the announcement in its entirety, you would have
> noticed:
> 
> "Source for this release is available at:
>     http://advocacy.postgresql.org/download/
>

I could have sworn we used to have a bunch of ftp mirrors for downloads.
Come to think of it I rewrote/stole a load of Vince's PHP code to allow
you to select one from the portal recently. Are we not using them
anymore?

:-)

Regards, Dave.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-03T20:48:16Z

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org]
> > Sent: 03 December 2002 19:12
> > To: Bruce Momjian
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global
> > Development Group Announces
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, this sounds great.
> > >
> > > Where can I get a copy?  Why would anyone use anything else?  ;-)
> >
> > Well, if you read the announcement in its entirety, you would have
> > noticed:
> >
> > "Source for this release is available at:
> >     http://advocacy.postgresql.org/download/
> >
>
> I could have sworn we used to have a bunch of ftp mirrors for downloads.
> Come to think of it I rewrote/stole a load of Vince's PHP code to allow
> you to select one from the portal recently. Are we not using them
> anymore?

Haven't you been paying attention?  There's this new advocacy and suit
marketing thing going on that makes all of that irrelevant.  It's just
there for show now.

:)

Vince.
-- 
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-03T21:17:15Z

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:

> I could have sworn we used to have a bunch of ftp mirrors for downloads.
> Come to think of it I rewrote/stole a load of Vince's PHP code to allow
> you to select one from the portal recently. Are we not using them
> anymore?

Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*

We are looking at some improvements to the download stuff ... Greg(?)
suggested a layout that I really liked for a web based version that would
have to tie into the main mirror database ... one that provided a wee bit
more information then just the directory listings ... but, with that
thought, isn't there a file you can put into an ftp directory that, when
you web into that directory, i gives  you the listings with various
comments, or is that just using the .messages file?

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-03T21:18:38Z

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> Haven't you been paying attention?  There's this new advocacy and suit
> marketing thing going on that makes all of that irrelevant.  It's just
> there for show now.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-03T21:40:15Z

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > I could have sworn we used to have a bunch of ftp mirrors for downloads.
> > Come to think of it I rewrote/stole a load of Vince's PHP code to allow
> > you to select one from the portal recently. Are we not using them
> > anymore?
>
> Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*

I understood it was intentional so comments wouldn't have done any good.

> We are looking at some improvements to the download stuff ... Greg(?)
> suggested a layout that I really liked for a web based version that would
> have to tie into the main mirror database ... one that provided a wee bit
> more information then just the directory listings ... but, with that
> thought, isn't there a file you can put into an ftp directory that, when
> you web into that directory, i gives  you the listings with various
> comments, or is that just using the .messages file?

All of them I've seen had an index.html in it.

Vince.
-- 
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-03T23:14:47Z

Dave Page wrote:
<snip>
> I could have sworn we used to have a bunch of ftp mirrors for downloads.
> Come to think of it I rewrote/stole a load of Vince's PHP code to allow
> you to select one from the portal recently. Are we not using them
> anymore?

Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to 
the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.

The only reason for the download page not having a list of mirrors is 
due to not having done it yet.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> :-)
> 
> Regards, Dave.
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org


-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2002-12-03T23:29:23Z

Marc G. Fournier writes:

> Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*

And how should we have guessed that release management is now done by the
"advocacy" group?  While you're out advocating, don't forget the existing
users.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-03T23:29:34Z

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
> 
> 
>>Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
>>had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
>>it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*
> 
> 
> And how should we have guessed that release management is now done by the
> "advocacy" group?  While you're out advocating, don't forget the existing
> users.

Sorry Peter.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-03T23:31:51Z

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Justin Clift writes:
> 
> 
>>Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to
>>the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.
> 
> 
> Why don't we just shut down the regular web site.  Clearly it's not
> considered adequate anymore.

Well, qe're trying to move the new "portal" side of things into place 
(presently at wwwdevel.postgresql.org), so that all of the different 
PostgreSQL pieces are more easily accessible.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2002-12-03T23:33:44Z

Justin Clift writes:

> Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to
> the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.

Why don't we just shut down the regular web site.  Clearly it's not
considered adequate anymore.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T13:32:27Z

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> > Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> > had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> > it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*
>
> I understood it was intentional so comments wouldn't have done any good.

Anything is only as intentional as nobody making constructive critisms of
it ... ewwww, that was major bad english ... not part of solution, you are
part of problem sort of thing...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T13:33:24Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> > had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> > it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*
>
> And how should we have guessed that release management is now done by the
> "advocacy" group?  While you're out advocating, don't forget the existing
> users.

It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T13:35:29Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

> Dave Page wrote:
> <snip>
> > I could have sworn we used to have a bunch of ftp mirrors for downloads.
> > Come to think of it I rewrote/stole a load of Vince's PHP code to allow
> > you to select one from the portal recently. Are we not using them
> > anymore?
>
> Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to
> the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.
>
> The only reason for the download page not having a list of mirrors is
> due to not having done it yet.

So as to not recreate the wheel, or, at least, get the wheel properly
rolling, can we get that download page redirected to the one that does
list the mirrors? :)

I liked Greg(?)'s ideas, but I don't see it as being implemented overnight
:)

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T13:37:33Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Justin Clift writes:
>
> > Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to
> > the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.
>
> Why don't we just shut down the regular web site.  Clearly it's not
> considered adequate anymore.

As of yet, the new portal isn't ready yet ... and the adequacy of the
existing site isn't so much a problem, but maintainability of it ...
according to Vince, trying to add anything to it is virtually impossible
:(

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-04T13:41:43Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > > Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> > > had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> > > it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*
> >
> > I understood it was intentional so comments wouldn't have done any good.
>
> Anything is only as intentional as nobody making constructive critisms of
> it ... ewwww, that was major bad english ... not part of solution, you are
> part of problem sort of thing...

That may be how you understood it, but not how I understood it.  There
appears to be an incremental takeover occurring.

Vince.
-- 
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-04T13:42:11Z

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
<snip>
> So as to not recreate the wheel, or, at least, get the wheel properly
> rolling, can we get that download page redirected to the one that does
> list the mirrors? :)

Yep.

Would the best way to do this be changing the wording to say something like:

"PostgreSQL can be downloaded as source code from any of the many mirror 
sites:"

With a link after it directing to somewhere that gives the list.  The 
present "www.postgresql.org" with the list of mirrors would probably be 
adequate, but it'll need to be a different url than the straight 
"www.postgresql.org" as that's going to change as soon as the new portal 
is in place.

Does this sound like a workable approach for now?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> I liked Greg(?)'s ideas, but I don't see it as being implemented overnight
> :)
> 
> 

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-04T13:47:53Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >
> > > Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> > > had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> > > it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on it *shrug*
> >
> > And how should we have guessed that release management is now done by the
> > "advocacy" group?  While you're out advocating, don't forget the existing
> > users.
>
> It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...

That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier.  It was full of buzzwords that were
masking the actual content.  Are you trying to hide the accomplishments or
promote them?  If you're trying to hide them like in this announcement you
may want to try using this tool:  http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
The stored phrases are much more refined and better paired.

Vince.
-- 
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-04T13:58:23Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Justin Clift writes:
> >
> > > Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to
> > > the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.
> >
> > Why don't we just shut down the regular web site.  Clearly it's not
> > considered adequate anymore.
>
> As of yet, the new portal isn't ready yet ... and the adequacy of the
> existing site isn't so much a problem, but maintainability of it ...
> according to Vince, trying to add anything to it is virtually impossible
> :(

I have a new design for it, now it's just getting the time to implement
it.  It's easy to add to and looks alot nicer.

Vince.
-- 
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T17:22:20Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier.  It was full of buzzwords that
> were masking the actual content.  Are you trying to hide the
> accomplishments or promote them?  If you're trying to hide them like in
> this announcement you may want to try using this tool:
> http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html The stored phrases are much more
> refined and better paired.

Bookmark'd for the next release ... thanks for the suggestion ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T17:23:32Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> I have a new design for it, now it's just getting the time to implement
> it.  It's easy to add to and looks alot nicer.

Cool, I think the only beef I ever had with it was the way the results
were presented, but loved teh whole annotated aspects ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2002-12-04T17:57:05Z

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> 
> > That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier.  It was full of buzzwords that
> > were masking the actual content.  Are you trying to hide the
> > accomplishments or promote them?  If you're trying to hide them like in
> > this announcement you may want to try using this tool:
> > http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html The stored phrases are much more
> > refined and better paired.
> 
> Bookmark'd for the next release ... thanks for the suggestion ...

I was hoping for something that would take existing text and *Bullshit*
it.  Bummer.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-04T18:01:19Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier.  It was full of buzzwords that
> > > were masking the actual content.  Are you trying to hide the
> > > accomplishments or promote them?  If you're trying to hide them like in
> > > this announcement you may want to try using this tool:
> > > http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html The stored phrases are much more
> > > refined and better paired.
> >
> > Bookmark'd for the next release ... thanks for the suggestion ...
>
> I was hoping for something that would take existing text and *Bullshit*
> it.  Bummer.

Click on it a few times.  You'll get the text you need.  I've actually
used it for real things with excellent results (I'm not going to
elaborate).

Vince.
-- 
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-04T20:03:59Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier.  It was full of buzzwords that
> > > were masking the actual content.  Are you trying to hide the
> > > accomplishments or promote them?  If you're trying to hide them like in
> > > this announcement you may want to try using this tool:
> > > http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html The stored phrases are much more
> > > refined and better paired.
> >
> > Bookmark'd for the next release ... thanks for the suggestion ...
>
> I was hoping for something that would take existing text and *Bullshit*
> it.  Bummer.

No, but I figure that at least it will give me a good site to give me BS
fodder from ... man, just wait for the next release announcement :)

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2002-12-05T00:01:16Z

Marc G. Fournier writes:

> It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...

Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2002-12-05T00:23:52Z

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
> 
> > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> 
> Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
> development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
> last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.

Peter, I understand your perspective, but I think you are in the
minority on this one.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> — 2002-12-05T01:48:37Z

> > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with
a
> > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>
> Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
> development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
> last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.

Ummm...I disagree.  Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
Particularly when you compare against similar efforts from MySQL, Oracle,
etc.

Chris

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Your Name <cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com> — 2002-12-05T03:43:40Z

> > > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with
> a
> > > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> >
> > Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
> > development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
> > last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.
> 
> Ummm...I disagree.  Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> Particularly when you compare against similar efforts from MySQL, Oracle,
> etc.

Yes, indeed.

The _prime_ reason for the fact that MySQL is the "M" in "LAMP" is that there 
is a steady, intent set of efforts going into marketing the "M."  People think 
that MySQL is faster, easier to use and "more standard" than its alternatives, 
and that is certainly the result of marketing.

The /real/ technical merit of MySQL has been that there are some integrated 
tools for ISPs like CPANEL that make it easy for ISPs that don't know 
/anything/ about DBMSes to provide MySQL for their customers.  CPANEL doesn't 
support PostgreSQL, and historically, it has been somewhat more difficult to 
support large numbers of PostgreSQL instances on a web server.  Some of that 
has changed, though CPANEL /still/ doesn't support PostgreSQL.

If any of you consider these "technical" issues to be small and petty, I'm 
afraid I don't /care/.  More importantly, the hundreds of ISPs licensing 
CPANEL don't care.  /They/ are the ones that would need convincing, and I 
don't think there's any real route to convince them that they should be 
pounding down CPANEL's door asking for a PostgreSQL front end and to convince 
them that they have to tell their customers:

  "We sold you MySQL, telling you it was good for you to use.  We were
   wrong, and our new story is that you should convert your databases over
   to use PostgreSQL."

Anyone consider that a likely scenario?  Anyone?

It's fair to say that PostgreSQL doesn't need the likes of the "Database 
HOWTO" that gives a sales job that's so blindly enthusiastic as to be, well, 
blind.

But an organization that has /no/ "marketing department" is at a severe 
disadvantage, like it or not.

It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to have a marketing group 
without there being some wilful blinders involved; it's vital for there to be 
some technical involvement in the marketing group to pop whatever bubbles they 
grow that are woefully wrong.  But even if it operates with some occasional 
lack of /real/ vision, it's necessary to have a marketing group...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "sirhc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/advocacy.html
Rules of the  Evil Overlord #106. "If my  supreme command center comes
under attack, I will immediately  flee to safety in my prepared escape
pod and  direct the  defenses from  there. I will  not wait  until the
troops break into my inner sanctum to attempt this."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> — 2002-12-05T03:52:56Z

At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.

What are the consequences of the problem?

>Particularly when you compare against similar efforts from MySQL, Oracle,
>etc.

You could even include Microsoft here - they do a lot of database 
marketing. I am not at all sure the fact that a lot of large companies with 
dubious products engage in extensive marketing is a reason for *us* to 
engage in extensive marketing.

We already have a substantial following, and our clients have direct access 
to the developers, so any marketing group is pretty irrelevant for existing 
clients. So the only place I can see for a marketing group is in building 
our market share by bringing in new clients.

If that is what we want, then fine. But I don't want to see any part of the 
development effort distorted or the existing user base inconvenienced in an 
effort to purely gain that market share. I usually associate increased 
marketing with decreased quality, and I think the causality works *both* ways.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172          |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                  |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2002-12-05T04:22:41Z

[cc: list trimmed]

On Wednesday 04 December 2002 22:52, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.

> What are the consequences of the problem?

Actually, lack of easy upgrading is one of PostgreSQL's major problems....

But lack of focused marketing -- truthful, not, as has been said, like the 
'Database HOWTO' -- is a real problem.  It would be nice to increase our 
usage.

> If that is what we want, then fine. But I don't want to see any part of the
> development effort distorted or the existing user base inconvenienced in an
> effort to purely gain that market share. I usually associate increased
> marketing with decreased quality, and I think the causality works *both*
> ways.

ISTM there's a separate, non-code-developer group doing this.  It doesn't seem 
to take away _any_ developer resources to do an advocacy site.

However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to be as 
fractured as they are.  Good grief!  We've got advocacy.postgresql.org, 
techdocs.postgresql.org, odbc.postgresql.org, gborg.postgresql.org, 
developer.postgresql.org, jdbc.postgresql.org, etc.  Oh, and we also have 
www.postgresql.org on the side?  I think not.  Oh, and they are fractured in 
their styles -- really, guys, we need a unified style here.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> — 2002-12-05T05:12:04Z

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:54:37 -0500, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> 
> What are the consequences of the problem?
> 

One consequence that probably hits home for everyone here is it makes it
extremely hard to make a living working with postgresql.  A quick search on
monster.com gives me 17 jobs mentioning postgresql, with none listed in the
last week. A search on mysql gives me 100 jobs, with 3 filed just today. 
I won't even go into the numbers for Oracle, DB2, and M$. We all have to 
pay the bills and I think we'd like to do it working with postgresql.

>>Particularly when you compare against similar efforts from MySQL,
>>Oracle, etc.
> 
> You could even include Microsoft here - they do a lot of database
> marketing. I am not at all sure the fact that a lot of large companies
> with dubious products engage in extensive marketing is a reason for *us*
> to engage in extensive marketing.
> 

You can't win marketshare on technology alone, so unless you think we
don't need to increase our market share, that is reason enough to do more
marketing.

> We already have a substantial following, and our clients have direct
> access to the developers, so any marketing group is pretty irrelevant
> for existing clients. So the only place I can see for a marketing group
> is in building our market share by bringing in new clients.
> 

Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
assault from their clients to use oracle or db2.  Technically there was no
reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of 
business, there really isn't much choice. 

In the company I work for now we use at least 4 different
database systems.  We could probably switch all of these to postgresql,
but it probably be one heck of a battle to convince people of that. A
simple argument that could be raised is that several of the database
developers use ERWin from computer associates. ERWin's postgresql support
is spotty compared to its support of oracle, and unless there is a
groundswell of demand for better postgresql support, that's not going to
change. If postgresql can gain a larger market share, computer associates
might improve their postgresql support, and we, existing clients that we
are, will be able to use postgresql in more areas. 

Marketing is very relevant to existing customers.

> If that is what we want, then fine. But I don't want to see any part of
> the development effort distorted or the existing user base
> inconvenienced in an effort to purely gain that market share. I usually
> associate increased marketing with decreased quality, and I think the
> causality works *both* ways.
> 

Aren't most development efforts made simply to gain market share? After
all, I don't think we added schema support to get *less* people to use
postgresql.

Robert Treat

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2002-12-05T05:20:20Z

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:54:37 -0500, Philip Warner wrote:
> > At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> > 
> > What are the consequences of the problem?
> > 
> 
> One consequence that probably hits home for everyone here is it makes it
> extremely hard to make a living working with postgresql.  A quick search on
> monster.com gives me 17 jobs mentioning postgresql, with none listed in the
> last week. A search on mysql gives me 100 jobs, with 3 filed just today. 
> I won't even go into the numbers for Oracle, DB2, and M$. We all have to 
> pay the bills and I think we'd like to do it working with postgresql.

One other thing marketing does is attracting developers, including
_paid_ developers, to work on PostgreSQL.  Fortunately PostgreSQL is a
big hit in Japan, so SRA can pay me to work on PostgreSQL.  If we can
increase PostgreSQL's popularity, we will get more people working to
improve PostgreSQL, both paid and volunteers.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Brian <brian@mail.pantalaimon.net> — 2002-12-05T05:34:19Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:

> What are the consequences of the problem?

Speaking from the perspective of a long time postgresql user, who
currently has several very mission critical applications using postgresql
on the back end, at a very large company...

I can say the one consequence of the problem that I have run into
personally, is convincing management to allow me to use postgresql for my
projects to begin with. Fortunately, where I am currently employed, I was
able to bash my head against the brick wall until they got tired of
hearing from me, and allowed me to go with postgresql instead of sybase
(which was their first choice, as the corporation already has a sybase
site license).

The lack of name recognition was a factor that contributed to the
difficulty of getting postgresql accepted. The last thing a non technical
middle manager wants to tell his or her manager is that some mission
critical application that just crashed was running on some database he had
never heard of before that he gave the go ahead to use.

Anyway, this probably doesn't belong on this mailing list, but I saw the
question and figured I'd answer :)

By the way, I'm happy to report that after a year of absolutely flawless
performance ( except the day the raid array imploded, which was hardly
postgres's fault ), postgresql has a very good reputation in my
department.

Brian Knox
Systems Programmer

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org> — 2002-12-05T06:37:09Z

Lamar Owen wrote:
> However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to be as 
> fractured as they are.  Good grief!  We've got advocacy.postgresql.org, 
> techdocs.postgresql.org, odbc.postgresql.org, gborg.postgresql.org, 
> developer.postgresql.org, jdbc.postgresql.org, etc.  Oh, and we also have 
> www.postgresql.org on the side?  I think not.  Oh, and they are fractured in 
> their styles -- really, guys, we need a unified style here.

I'd love to see this happen. From reading the messages here, it sounds 
like the perception is that marketing == spouting bullshit. I don't 
believe that's true. I think having an informative, up-to-date, 
stylistically consistent website would do a tremendous amount of good.

The JDBC one is a particularly bad example right now - it doesn't fit in 
with any of the rest of the site and its most prominent link is to a 
completely out-of-date list of compliance tests the driver fails. The 
driver may have its flaws but it's a lot better than presented there.

IMHO these things make a difference to technical people as well as 
suits. If that site and the MySQL JDBC driver's site were my first 
impressions, I would be using MySQL.

The JDBC site is certainly not the only one with flaws. The main website 
has this paragraph in <http://www15.us.postgresql.org/related.html>:

     For encrypted postgresql connections, Brett McCormick
     (brett-public@speakeasy.org) has made a patch for PostgreSQL
     version 6.3.2 using SSL. Visit his info page for more information.

That's horribly obselete. In fact, I think a lot of the related projects 
are. That's only two clicks away from the main page.

I'm volunteering to do work here. I could at the very least go through 
the sites and make a longer list of things like this that I notice. If 
they are public CVS somewhere, I can send patches. I saw that there's a 
<http://wwwdevel.postgresql.org/>. What's going on with that? Is there 
anything I can do to speed up its adoption? How will it affect the rest 
of the sites?

Is this list the appropriate place to discuss the websites? or should I 
take it to -advocacy? My impression here is that the two sites are 
maintained separately and the people involved haven't interacted very 
much. Is that accurate or no?

Thanks,
Scott

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-05T14:31:11Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com wrote:

> It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to have a marketing group
> without there being some wilful blinders involved; it's vital for there to be
> some technical involvement in the marketing group to pop whatever bubbles they
> grow that are woefully wrong.  But even if it operates with some occasional
> lack of /real/ vision, it's necessary to have a marketing group...

And, for the most part, those that are -advocacy are techies that wish to
contribute as they can, but don't have the knowledge/time to dedicate to
actual code ...

Bruce is kinda quiet, but both he and I are on that list, and I read (and
imagine Bruce does to) pretty much everything that goes through ...
but, again, these aren't 'marketing droids' we have over there, but
techies that are using the software and have an idea of her limitations
and benefits ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-05T14:34:05Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:

> At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
>
> What are the consequences of the problem?

Well, I'd have to say the major one is a difficult in increasing our user
base, as ppl like MySQL are making sure they are heard whenever they
add something new that we've had for years ...

> If that is what we want, then fine. But I don't want to see any part of
> the development effort distorted or the existing user base
> inconvenienced in an effort to purely gain that market share. I usually
> associate increased marketing with decreased quality, and I think the
> causality works *both* ways.

That is what we want, and the efforts in no way are meant to
undermine/distort anything ... go to archives.postgresql.org and read
through the threads to get a feel ... its not a closed/hidden list by any
means ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-05T14:37:48Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:

> However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to be as
> fractured as they are.  Good grief!  We've got advocacy.postgresql.org,
> techdocs.postgresql.org, odbc.postgresql.org, gborg.postgresql.org,
> developer.postgresql.org, jdbc.postgresql.org, etc.  Oh, and we also have
> www.postgresql.org on the side?  I think not.  Oh, and they are fractured in
> their styles -- really, guys, we need a unified style here.

Ummm, actually, we have:

advocacy, techdocs, gborg, developer, archives, jobs

note that altho they are seperate URLs, the end result is going to be that
http://www.postgresql.org we become the "town square" of sorts, which
should be "real soon now" ...

jdbc/odbc are 'project sites' off of gborg, similar to what sourceforge
provides ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-05T14:42:25Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Scott Lamb wrote:

> Is this list the appropriate place to discuss the websites? or should I
> take it to -advocacy? My impression here is that the two sites are
> maintained separately and the people involved haven't interacted very
> much. Is that accurate or no?

Expect some major changes coming down the pipe ...
http://www.postgresql.org is in its final stages of a major face lift ...
the informatoin that iscurrently on that site, Vince is in the process of
doing a major face lift on, but as it is now, I guess its been a veritible
nightmare for him to really add anyting to it ...

Once we announce the new http://www.postgresql.org (hopefully this coming
week *cross fingers*), then start bombarding us with problems :)

Note that for the web site development effort itself, there is a
closed list with about a dozen or so of us on it ... the -advocacy list is
meant to be open, with its focus reflected on the advocacy web site itself
...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2002-12-05T17:01:43Z

On Thursday 05 December 2002 09:37, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to
> > be as fractured as they are.  Good grief!  We've got

> note that altho they are seperate URLs, the end result is going to be that
> http://www.postgresql.org we become the "town square" of sorts, which
> should be "real soon now" ...

> jdbc/odbc are 'project sites' off of gborg, similar to what sourceforge
> provides ...

Glad to hear this.

One question: is there any particular reason the www list is closed?  Just 
curious -- reading archives of this list, or getting a digest or this list, 
even in a read-only manner, might alleviate some misconceptions.  Those who 
care can at least read what's planned for the web site.

As far as advocacy is concerned, I made a conscious decision to not read that 
list -- I don't need to be convinced to use PostgreSQL. :-).  Nor am I 
necessarily a good 'advocacy' person......my 'convincing' many times comes 
across much different from what I meant.  So I don't read that list.

Can you (or Vince) distill a roadmap for the website and post here, on 
hackers?
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2002-12-05T18:54:46Z

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com wrote:
> 
> > It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to have a marketing group
> > without there being some wilful blinders involved; it's vital for there to be
> > some technical involvement in the marketing group to pop whatever bubbles they
> > grow that are woefully wrong.  But even if it operates with some occasional
> > lack of /real/ vision, it's necessary to have a marketing group...
> 
> And, for the most part, those that are -advocacy are techies that wish to
> contribute as they can, but don't have the knowledge/time to dedicate to
> actual code ...
> 
> Bruce is kinda quiet, but both he and I are on that list, and I read (and
> imagine Bruce does to) pretty much everything that goes through ...
> but, again, these aren't 'marketing droids' we have over there, but
> techies that are using the software and have an idea of her limitations
> and benefits ...

Yes, I have been way too quiet.  I am trying to carve out time before
starting on 7.4 work, but it seems stuff keeps coming up.  I have
updated the developers page with company names, and Vince is going to
integrate that.  My next step is to split out my advocacy mailbox and
start shooting out content for the advocacy site.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2002-12-05T19:17:08Z

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>>> It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
>>> stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>> 
>> Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
>> development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
>> last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.

> Peter, I understand your perspective, but I think you are in the
> minority on this one.

I tend to agree with Peter.  Not that we don't need a marketing
presence; we do (I think Great Bridge's marketing efforts are sorely
missed).  But the point he is making is that the pgsql mailing lists
go to people who are generally unimpressed by marketing fluff.  And
they're already "sold" on PG anyway.

The right way to handle this next time is to generate a PR-style
press release to send to outside contacts, but to do our more
traditional, technically-oriented announcement on the mailing lists.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> — 2002-12-06T01:31:05Z

At 12:12 AM 5/12/2002 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> > What are the consequences of the problem?
> >
>
>One consequence that probably hits home for everyone here is it makes it
>extremely hard to make a living working with postgresql.
...
>You can't win marketshare on technology alone

I am happy with increasing market share so long a development is not 
distorted or current users inconvenienced. We have seen the latter with the 
misplaced announcements. And the former because I am writing this on 
-hackers, rather than implementing dependency-tracking in pg_dump ;-).

>...lots of stuff deleted...
>Marketing is very relevant to existing customers.

Good point. Market Share -> Influence ->Corprate Support -> more features 
-> market share.

Gaining market share *is* a natural consequence of improving the product; 
marketing is about convincing people a product has improved, even if it 
hasn't. Advocacy is about telling people about the product as it is - and I 
have no problem with that, with the above proviso.

>Aren't most development efforts made simply to gain market share?

<diatribe>
I seriously hope not - in fact I would find that very depressing.

In my opinion, anyone who devotes their personal free time to an open 
source development project probably has a slew of complex motivations that 
have little to do with market share. Perhaps the closest they would come 
would be to say "I want to make it better", and in some peoples minds, 
"better" is measured by market share.

In my case, development I did on other open source projects (libgd) was 
driven by a philosophical objection to application of patents to software 
in the US, and to a need for particular features (gd2 format, & gif 
support). My work on PG is driven by a desire to make the product more 
useful (to me), more usable (for me), and by a philosophical belief in the 
importance of free & open software. The fact that other people (& I) profit 
from this work is great. In any case, market share, for me, is at best a 
third order influence - and I assume that's true for most people who 
contribute to OS software. Although I do admit that there is a natural 
tendency to want "your team" to win.
</diatribe>

>After
>all, I don't think we added schema support to get *less* people to use
>postgresql.

I am not sure why it was added, and it's sufficiently esoteric and large 
that I doubt market share was an issue. If we wanted market share, then 
online-vacuum and online-upgrade would have been the big-hitters.

My guess is that it was done because we did not support it, it is in the 
SQL standard, and it solved a number of issues that caused existing users & 
developers problems. It was probably also an interesting project. Maybe I'm 
wrong...

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172          |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                  |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> — 2002-12-06T04:13:39Z

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:26:13 -0500, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 12:12 AM 5/12/2002 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> I am happy with increasing market share so long a development is not
> distorted or current users inconvenienced. We have seen the latter with
> the misplaced announcements.

It seems to me that people were inconvenienced solely because Mark forgot
to CC the right groups and he didn't put the word "7.3" in the right
place in his subject line. Oh, and guess it was disruptive for people who
killfile any piece of email that has quoted text in it...

>  And the former because I am writing this on
> -hackers, rather than implementing dependency-tracking in pg_dump ;-).
> 

so get back to coding already...

>>...lots of stuff deleted...
>>Marketing is very relevant to existing customers.
> 
> Good point. Market Share -> Influence ->Corprate Support -> more
> features -> market share.
> 
> Gaining market share *is* a natural consequence of improving the
> product; 

really? postgresql has been improving by leaps and bounds of the last few
years, but I guarantee you it's been losing market share, and it's losing
that market share to databases without half the features.

> marketing is about convincing people a product has improved,
> even if it hasn't. Advocacy is about telling people about the product as
> it is - and I have no problem with that, with the above proviso.
> 

<snip lots more stuff that basically says marketing isn't all bad, it's
irrelevant too>

well, i think any more discussion at this point becomes a semantical
argument or a flame war, and I've time for neither. 

Robert Treat

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Thomas O'Connell <tfo@monsterlabs.com> — 2002-12-07T01:14:12Z

As someone who exists mainly as an active user (and part-time 
advocate/documentation tweaker), I have found the release of PostgreSQL 
7.3 to be disappointing. The ensuing pseudo-flamewar on the various 
lists has been similarly disappointing.

I was surprised, for instance, to receive a non-list email announcing 
the release of the software but then to have to wait for days actually 
to see it show up on the official (or even the advocacy) website in a 
news item. Even now it is not listed at PostgreSQL, Inc.

Consider the pieces of the puzzle here:

1) an official website (http://www.postgresql.org/)
2) an advocacy website (http://advocacy.postgresql.org/)
3) official mailing lists
4) a separate email database
5) a developers' website (http://developers.postgresql.org/)
6) an official ftp site (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/)
7) mirror websites
8) mirror ftp sites
9) a corporate website (http://www.pgsql.com/)

While I have remained impressed with the software itself, the 
organization of these pieces has left much to be desired for the 
duration of my involvement as an end user.

As someone who works in a small startup company, I am a frequent witness 
to both the advantages and disadvantages of the lack of a strong 
benevolent dictatorship in the form of management. I think one of the 
core problems with the advocacy and presentation of the PostgreSQL 
project is the fact that it has been a developer-centric project for 
quite some time, and that process, while there are drivers, does not 
tend to affect much other than the code. There does not seem to be a 
single, driving vision (or even a Board or consensus-based vision) 
behind the public face of PostgreSQL. Granted, when a project is 
entirely volunteer-based, the management and development are loose. I've 
noticed that in many such projects, web design and maintenance become 
very low priority, especially when left to groups of hackers. Witness 
GNU, Debian, and, I would say PostgreSQL: extremely spare official 
websites often intimidating and/or difficult for the newbie.

I've wanted to see a bit more structure given to the PostgreSQL website, 
the release process, and various other portions of the project for quite 
some time, but often it seems as though such a structure would not even 
be welcome. As someone who has not had time to be a true developer on 
the project, I'm content to wait for the missing features I'd like to 
see.

Still, I'm hoping that developers and advocates alike realize that the 
release process and these lists are in the public domain, and the way 
business is conducted affects the perceptions of users as much as the 
quality of the software or any amount of marketing.

In any case, thanks for all the hard work. I actually thought the text 
of the email release I received was good and am working on the upgrade 
process now in my own environment.

-tfo

In article <29852.1039115828@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >>> It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> >>> stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> >> 
> >> Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
> >> development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
> >> last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.
> 
> > Peter, I understand your perspective, but I think you are in the
> > minority on this one.
> 
> I tend to agree with Peter.  Not that we don't need a marketing
> presence; we do (I think Great Bridge's marketing efforts are sorely
> missed).  But the point he is making is that the pgsql mailing lists
> go to people who are generally unimpressed by marketing fluff.  And
> they're already "sold" on PG anyway.
> 
> The right way to handle this next time is to generate a PR-style
> press release to send to outside contacts, but to do our more
> traditional, technically-oriented announcement on the mailing lists.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T00:20:19Z

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >
> > > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> > > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> >
> > Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
> > development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
> > last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.
>
> Peter, I understand your perspective, but I think you are in the
> minority on this one.

Kinda depends who you're asking now, doesn't it?  I happen to agree with
him, but as long as you're only going to involve a selected few in the
opinion gathering you can pretty much get the answer you want to get.  I
can survey 100 people and get the opposite result putting you in the
minority.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T01:53:20Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:

> Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
> assault from their clients to use oracle or db2.  Technically there was no
> reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of
> business, there really isn't much choice.

That tells me their clients wanted a commercial database, not one that's
open source.  All the marketing in the world won't change that.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-08T01:58:41Z

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> 
> 
>>Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
>>assault from their clients to use oracle or db2.  Technically there was no
>>reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of
>>business, there really isn't much choice.
> 
> 
> That tells me their clients wanted a commercial database, not one that's
> open source.  All the marketing in the world won't change that.

Really?

Why do you say that?

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> Vince.


-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T02:13:12Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Brian Knox wrote:

> Speaking from the perspective of a long time postgresql user, who
> currently has several very mission critical applications using postgresql
> on the back end, at a very large company...
>
> I can say the one consequence of the problem that I have run into
> personally, is convincing management to allow me to use postgresql for my
> projects to begin with. Fortunately, where I am currently employed, I was
> able to bash my head against the brick wall until they got tired of
> hearing from me, and allowed me to go with postgresql instead of sybase
> (which was their first choice, as the corporation already has a sybase
> site license).
>
> The lack of name recognition was a factor that contributed to the
> difficulty of getting postgresql accepted. The last thing a non technical
> middle manager wants to tell his or her manager is that some mission
> critical application that just crashed was running on some database he had
> never heard of before that he gave the go ahead to use.

Not name recognition, but it'd be nice to think that's the reason.
Mysql has alot of name recognition but you didn't mention them.  You
mentioned sybase and having a sybase site license.  Marketing wouldn't
help here, they want a commercial database used that they've already
paid for.

What too many people fail to realize is that in a commercial environment
many companies want another company to point the finger at in case of
disaster.  Sybase failed, or HP failed, or IBM failed, or Microsoft
failed.  They feel they can do something about that.  If they lose a
few million they have someone they can go after, who are they going to
go after if PostgreSQL fails them?  Marc?  Bruce?

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> — 2002-12-08T03:11:18Z

> What too many people fail to realize is that in a commercial environment
> many companies want another company to point the finger at in case of
> disaster.  Sybase failed, or HP failed, or IBM failed, or Microsoft
> failed.  They feel they can do something about that.  If they lose a
> few million they have someone they can go after, who are they going to
> go after if PostgreSQL fails them?  Marc?  Bruce?

This is when you start to shout that RedHat offers commercial support,
licencing, etc. INCLUDING a free, non-restrictive source licence to the
core components of RHDB.

-- 
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T20:52:10Z

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
> >>assault from their clients to use oracle or db2.  Technically there was no
> >>reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of
> >>business, there really isn't much choice.
> >
> >
> > That tells me their clients wanted a commercial database, not one that's
> > open source.  All the marketing in the world won't change that.
>
> Really?
>
> Why do you say that?

Because of this taken from the above quoted text:

"they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"

Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.

Anything else you don't understand about that?

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T20:57:03Z

On 7 Dec 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:

>
> > What too many people fail to realize is that in a commercial environment
> > many companies want another company to point the finger at in case of
> > disaster.  Sybase failed, or HP failed, or IBM failed, or Microsoft
> > failed.  They feel they can do something about that.  If they lose a
> > few million they have someone they can go after, who are they going to
> > go after if PostgreSQL fails them?  Marc?  Bruce?
>
> This is when you start to shout that RedHat offers commercial support,
> licencing, etc. INCLUDING a free, non-restrictive source licence to the
> core components of RHDB.

I had considered mentioning redhat but didn't want to blur things.  Red
hat markets PostgreSQL under a different name and they're offering a
complete package (including support as you note).  The PGDG isn't doing
that and they shouldn't be.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-08T21:19:13Z

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> 
> "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> 
> Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.

And.... ?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> Anything else you don't understand about that?
> 
> Vince.


-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> — 2002-12-08T22:01:00Z

On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 20:52, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Why do you say that?
> 
> Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> 
> "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> 
> Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.

This is a reason to increase marketing effort.  I know the word has
pejorative overtones in our community, but it means talking about
PostgreSQL so that the PHBs hear about it and therefore begin to feel
comfortable about using it.

If something is familiar, it feels safe.  We need to make PostgreSQL
familiar.  That's why we need marketing.

-- 
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>
LFIX Limited

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T22:07:55Z

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> >
> > "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> >
> > Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> > happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.
>
> And.... ?

And what?  If you can't understand the above you're in the wrong business.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-08T22:18:27Z

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> 
> 
>>Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>>
>>>Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
>>>
>>>"they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
>>>
>>>Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
>>>happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.
>>
>>And.... ?
> 
> 
> And what?  If you can't understand the above you're in the wrong business.

And.... ?


Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> Vince.


-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T22:27:40Z

On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 20:52, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > Why do you say that?
> >
> > Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> >
> > "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> >
> > Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> > happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.
>
> This is a reason to increase marketing effort.  I know the word has
> pejorative overtones in our community, but it means talking about
> PostgreSQL so that the PHBs hear about it and therefore begin to feel
> comfortable about using it.
>
> If something is familiar, it feels safe.  We need to make PostgreSQL
> familiar.  That's why we need marketing.

Then why wasn't mysql in the list?  It's familiar.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T22:30:08Z

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >>
> >>>Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> >>>
> >>>"they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> >>>
> >>>Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> >>>happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.
> >>
> >>And.... ?
> >
> >
> > And what?  If you can't understand the above you're in the wrong business.
>
> And.... ?

That's what I thought.  You have no argument so your just typing.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> — 2002-12-08T22:59:09Z

On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:27, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:

> > If something is familiar, it feels safe.  We need to make PostgreSQL
> > familiar.  That's why we need marketing.
> 
> Then why wasn't mysql in the list?  It's familiar.

To PHBs?

MySQL doesn't have anything like the marketing clout of Oracle and IBM. 
Be thankful it isn't in the list; it would make it a hell of a lot more
difficult to dislodge it.

If we want people to use PostgreSQL in preference to anything else, we
have to make it known.  That is marketing.  If we believe we have a good
product we need to say so and say why and how it's better, cheaper and
purer than anything else.  If there's no good marketing, bad marketing
will rule the world for sure.

If we don't care, we can retreat into a pure technological huddle and
disappear up our own navels.  The rest of the world won't even notice. 
Such purity will eventually destroy the project because it will lose the
momentum for growth through a lack of new input.  You can grow or you
can decline; a steady state is almost impossible to achieve.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK                             http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "For I am the LORD your God; ye shall therefore  
      sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am 
      holy."          Leviticus 11:44

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-08T23:14:53Z

On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:27, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> > > If something is familiar, it feels safe.  We need to make PostgreSQL
> > > familiar.  That's why we need marketing.
> >
> > Then why wasn't mysql in the list?  It's familiar.
>
> To PHBs?

I would argue yes.  Everywhere you turn you see "Powered by MySQL".
If years of working on it isn't getting them the familiarity to overcome
the PHBs then the PHBs are either not considering open source or the
marketing attempts aren't strong or capable enough to penetrate.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-08T23:52:56Z

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
 >
> That's what I thought.  You have no argument so your just typing.

Hi Vince,

Was more hoping you'd care to share your basis for stating Robert's 
employers clients wanted a "commercial database", after he mentioned 
specifically DB2 and Oracle.  Knowing one of the obvious common factors 
they have and then stating it was definitely the reason - not having 
sought clarification nor confirmation from Robert - and then further 
stating that the PG Advocacy and Marketing group wouldn't be able to 
assist even if that were the case, is extremely bad form coming from 
anyone, let alone you.

Please consider the statements you make by a more accurate approach in 
the future.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> Vince.

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2002-12-09T00:14:12Z

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>  >
> > That's what I thought.  You have no argument so your just typing.
>
> Hi Vince,
>
> Was more hoping you'd care to share your basis for stating Robert's
> employers clients wanted a "commercial database", after he mentioned
> specifically DB2 and Oracle.  Knowing one of the obvious common factors
> they have and then stating it was definitely the reason - not having
> sought clarification nor confirmation from Robert - and then further
> stating that the PG Advocacy and Marketing group wouldn't be able to
> assist even if that were the case, is extremely bad form coming from
> anyone, let alone you.

Then they come with the insults.   Justin, I'm finished discussing this
with you.  You're obviously not capable of understanding it and you're
simply wasting my time - like usual.

Vince.
-- 
 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Ned Lilly <ned@nedscape.com> — 2002-12-09T01:53:17Z

Oliver Elphick wrote:

> If we want people to use PostgreSQL in preference to anything else, we
> have to make it known.  That is marketing.  If we believe we have a good
> product we need to say so and say why and how it's better, cheaper and
> purer than anything else.  If there's no good marketing, bad marketing
> will rule the world for sure.
> 
> If we don't care, we can retreat into a pure technological huddle and
> disappear up our own navels.  The rest of the world won't even notice. 
> Such purity will eventually destroy the project because it will lose the
> momentum for growth through a lack of new input.  You can grow or you
> can decline; a steady state is almost impossible to achieve.

Couldn't agree more with that last point.

I've had the perspective of working in big companies using various database software, a company specifically focused on PostgreSQL (Great Bridge), and now a new ISV with PostgreSQL underneath a vertical application (OpenMFG).  I can tell you that even though the pgsql-hacker community is as strong as it's ever been, I think there's a serious danger of the larger world passing PostgreSQL by.

Oracle and DB2 continue to get better and - significantly - cheaper, and SQL Server ... well, Oracle and DB2 are getting better.  MySQL, even though it's an inferior product for most real database work, has always had a significantly larger installed base than PostgreSQL- and it's less controversial for people like Sun (who have deep relationships with Oracle) to get involved with.  And despite the productizing of RHDB, Red Hat doesn't seem interested in making a real push for PostgreSQL either.  While there are a number of smaller companies trying to help out, I think it's clear that the burden for helping PostgreSQL to find wider acceptance in the marketplace will be on the pgsql-hacker community for some time to come.

I applaud the efforts of the advocacy group, and encourage others here not to look at the marketing as somehow dirty or beneath the dignity of the project.

Keep up the good work,
Ned

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> — 2002-12-09T03:48:54Z

On Sunday 08 December 2002 06:14 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:27, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > > > If something is familiar, it feels safe.  We need to make PostgreSQL
> > > > familiar.  That's why we need marketing.
> > >
> > > Then why wasn't mysql in the list?  It's familiar.
> >
> > To PHBs?
>
> I would argue yes.  Everywhere you turn you see "Powered by MySQL".
> If years of working on it isn't getting them the familiarity to overcome
> the PHBs then the PHBs are either not considering open source or the
> marketing attempts aren't strong or capable enough to penetrate.
>

I don't think mysql has penetrated the "enterprise class/ mission critical" 
mindest, which is the level our service had to be provided that.  To be 
honest, it was tough to argue PostgreSQL belonged in that group, though we 
had a good 2 years worth of history in actually running the business on 
PostgreSQL which couldn't be dismissed.  Of course, some of these companies 
weren't too happy things were running on linux, and not aix or solaris; are 
we seeing a pointy haired trend here?  Personally I never understood why our 
sales guys didn't just tell them "ok we'll port the service to oracle/solaris 
for you, but it's going to cost you at least twice what it does now, if not 
three times. Oh, and you won't see any better performance."

Robert Treat

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Tommi Maekitalo <t.maekitalo@epgmbh.de> — 2002-12-09T08:03:44Z

Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2002 05:22 schrieb Lamar Owen:
> [cc: list trimmed]
>
> On Wednesday 04 December 2002 22:52, Philip Warner wrote:
> > At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> >
> > What are the consequences of the problem?
>
> Actually, lack of easy upgrading is one of PostgreSQL's major problems....
>
> But lack of focused marketing -- truthful, not, as has been said, like the
> 'Database HOWTO' -- is a real problem.  It would be nice to increase our
> usage.
>
> > If that is what we want, then fine. But I don't want to see any part of
> > the development effort distorted or the existing user base inconvenienced
> > in an effort to purely gain that market share. I usually associate
> > increased marketing with decreased quality, and I think the causality
> > works *both* ways.
>
> ISTM there's a separate, non-code-developer group doing this.  It doesn't
> seem to take away _any_ developer resources to do an advocacy site.
>
> However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to be
> as fractured as they are.  Good grief!  We've got advocacy.postgresql.org,
> techdocs.postgresql.org, odbc.postgresql.org, gborg.postgresql.org,
> developer.postgresql.org, jdbc.postgresql.org, etc.  Oh, and we also have
> www.postgresql.org on the side?  I think not.  Oh, and they are fractured
> in their styles -- really, guys, we need a unified style here.

Hi,

there are lots of sites talking about postgresql. But if someone hear about 
postgresql he sure tries www.postgresql.org. There he just get a list of 
mirrors. Not really a good start. But worse: there is no links to gborg, 
advocacy, techdocs, ... Advocacy should be found at www.postgresql.org and 
have links to the other pages. I found gborg when reading the mailinglistst. 
It is something like a insidertip.

www.apache.org has a much better structure. You go to www.apache.org and get a 
welcome-message and links to subprojects as the webserver.

Another point that comes to my mind is design. I'm not a designer, but I like 
the design of www.postgresql.org but not advocacy.postrgresql.org.

Tommi

-- 
Dr. Eckhardt + Partner GmbH
http://www.epgmbh.de

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2002-12-09T08:16:01Z

Hi Tommi,

Tommi Maekitalo wrote:
<snip>
> Hi,
> 
> there are lots of sites talking about postgresql. But if someone hear about 
> postgresql he sure tries www.postgresql.org. There he just get a list of 
> mirrors. Not really a good start. But worse: there is no links to gborg, 
> advocacy, techdocs, ... Advocacy should be found at www.postgresql.org and 
> have links to the other pages. I found gborg when reading the mailinglistst. 
> It is something like a insidertip.

There is a new front page for the www.postgresql.org site that was 
recently finished, and will be moved into the correct place soon.  You 
can view it for now at wwwdevel.postgresql.org.

The new front page has links to the other main websites, so it should 
help people find the information they need in a much easier way.  :-)

Hope that's helpful to know.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

<snip>
> Tommi
> 

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> — 2002-12-09T09:20:45Z

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> 
> > Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
> > >>assault from their clients to use oracle or db2.  Technically there was no
> > >>reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of
> > >>business, there really isn't much choice.
> > >
> > >
> > > That tells me their clients wanted a commercial database, not one that's
> > > open source.  All the marketing in the world won't change that.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Why do you say that?
> 
> Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> 
> "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> 
> Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.
> 
> Anything else you don't understand about that?

There are a number of reasons their clients could have been clamoring
for DB2 or Oracle, only some of which are related to the fact that
they're commercial, closed-source databases:

1.  They already have significant in-house expertise with one or the
    other product.

2.  They need 24x7 support, and are convinced that they'll get better
    support for Oracle or DB2 than anything else.

3.  They want a company to blame in case things go wrong.

4.  They require certain capabilities that they believe only DB2 or
    Oracle can provide.

5.  They have an established partnership with IBM or Oracle.

6.  Some combination of the above.

Some of those reasons are such that it might be possible (depending on
the specifics of the situation) to successfully market PostgreSQL (or
even MySQL) to them, and some of them aren't.  It just depends.

And that's why it's a bad idea to simply discard that situation as one
in which it would be impossible to market PostgreSQL.

Marketing is the art of convincing someone that they want your
product.  Since the keyword here is "want", it's an art that combines
reason and emotion.  Even if the situation seems logically hopeless
(that is, there's no logical reason for the customer to prefer your
product over another), you may still manage to successfully market
your product to them by appealing to their emotions.  Happens all the
time.

My personal feeling is that in the case of PostgreSQL, it should be
marketed primarily using reason.  More precisely, it should *not* be
marketed to someone for whom a different product would better suit
them.  That, to me, would be shady at best and would eventually become
a blemish on the reputation of the PostgreSQL community.  But it
doesn't mean giving up just because the client thinks he wants a
commercial database: he may well want something else that a commercial
database just happens to provide.

If you're trying to sell someone on PostgreSQL, it behooves you to
figure out what their real needs are first.  Their actual needs may be
significantly different from what they tell you they want.

-- 
Kevin Brown					      kevin@sysexperts.com

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> — 2002-12-09T09:43:12Z

On 9 Dec 2002 at 1:20, Kevin Brown wrote:

> 2.  They need 24x7 support, and are convinced that they'll get better
>     support for Oracle or DB2 than anything else.

I have experienced what oracle support means for 24x7. I wouldn't even wish 
that penalty for my worst enemy.

I can tell a story about it but I digress. Details aren't important though 
true. 

What really matters is how kindly and dearly you stand by your product. That is 
where all support originates.. Rest is marketing..

Bye
 Shridhar

--
I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer toany 
question.		-- Spock, "This Side of Paradise", stardate 3417.3

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-09T22:15:21Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> I tend to agree with Peter.  Not that we don't need a marketing
> presence; we do (I think Great Bridge's marketing efforts are sorely
> missed).  But the point he is making is that the pgsql mailing lists go
> to people who are generally unimpressed by marketing fluff.  And they're
> already "sold" on PG anyway.
>
> The right way to handle this next time is to generate a PR-style
> press release to send to outside contacts, but to do our more
> traditional, technically-oriented announcement on the mailing lists.

Agreed ... we tried to do 'two-in-one' on this one and it didn't quite
work out as well as it could have ... next time, we'll go with both
methods ...

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-09T22:18:16Z

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Thomas O'Connell wrote:

> I was surprised, for instance, to receive a non-list email announcing
> the release of the software but then to have to wait for days actually
> to see it show up on the official (or even the advocacy) website in a
> news item. Even now it is not listed at PostgreSQL, Inc.

ack, an oversight, I can assure you ... I have proded the apporpriate ppl
for this one :(

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2002-12-09T22:21:29Z

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > >
> > > > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> > > > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> > >
> > > Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
> > > development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
> > > last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.
> >
> > Peter, I understand your perspective, but I think you are in the
> > minority on this one.
>
> Kinda depends who you're asking now, doesn't it?  I happen to agree with
> him, but as long as you're only going to involve a selected few in the
> opinion gathering you can pretty much get the answer you want to get.  I
> can survey 100 people and get the opposite result putting you in the
> minority.

Me, I think Peter went to the 'far left', while the press release went to
the 'far right' (or vice versa) ... i think Tom sum'd it up best that we
should have had one for each 'market' we were trying to address ...
definitely something to keep in mind and strive for for the next release
...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Iavor Raytchev <pobox@verysmall.org> — 2002-12-14T00:44:57Z

>
>
>>>Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Marc G. Fournier writes:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
>>>>>stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
>>>>development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
>>>>last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.
>>>>
Then you will have what you want. You will be used by a limited number 
of developers who understand the idea. And you will have ugly dialogues 
like that. This sounds a bit like 'what would happen if all population 
of the world were male'. Or all were developers. You should accept the 
fact that you never have developers on the front line. Even if you take 
Microsoft - I even do not know the name of the chief software engineer 
(do not tell me this is Mr. Gates, he is not - there is a guy with a 
beard, the third richest man in the world or so). Or if you take Oracle 
- you have Larry. Larry is not a developer. Or even with MySQL - you see 
the marketing machine. Even with Linux - I have not seen Linus in the 
press for ages. Or Alan. All 'gurus' are hidden. You take the hype - the 
hype of Bill or the hype of Linus. Or the charming and successfully 
arogant Lary. And make a product out of it and a market. As long as the 
developers of PostgreSQL want to be on the front line - it will be what 
it is - a fine database used by the people who have the clue to talk to 
and understand developers. An uncut diamond.

I actually do not understand why is the whole cry - why not somebody who 
has REALLY the marketing in his/her heart - does not make an open source 
amazingly beautiful and powerful web site. You do not have to ask Bruce 
for that. You get BRICOLAGE - it is free, and it is good - salon.com 
runs on it. You inspire some great designer to do the desing (do not ask 
a developer to do that, otherwise a designer might want to do some code 
and PostgreSQL is lost). Call Mario Garcia (www.mariogarcia.com) - he 
will be proud to help. And you take ten fanatic advocacy people to fill 
in success stories and case studies. News. Whatever.

It does not take that much. It take strong individuals that lead. 
However, some people on HACKERS find special pleasure to kill all 
initiative. I do not see this for first time...

Iavor

www.pgaccess.org

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2002-12-14T00:50:25Z

Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> I actually do not understand why is the whole cry - why not somebody who 
> has REALLY the marketing in his/her heart - does not make an open source 
> amazingly beautiful and powerful web site. You do not have to ask Bruce 
> for that. You get BRICOLAGE - it is free, and it is good - salon.com 
> runs on it. You inspire some great designer to do the desing (do not ask 
> a developer to do that, otherwise a designer might want to do some code 
> and PostgreSQL is lost). Call Mario Garcia (www.mariogarcia.com) - he 
> will be proud to help. And you take ten fanatic advocacy people to fill 
> in success stories and case studies. News. Whatever.
> 
> It does not take that much. It take strong individuals that lead. 
> However, some people on HACKERS find special pleasure to kill all 
> initiative. I do not see this for first time...

I think we have gotten over that hurdle and _most_ agree marketing is a
priority.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Iavor Raytchev <pobox@verysmall.org> — 2002-12-14T01:16:18Z

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Iavor Raytchev wrote:
>  
>
>>I actually do not understand why is the whole cry - why not somebody who 
>>has REALLY the marketing in his/her heart - does not make an open source 
>>amazingly beautiful and powerful web site. You do not have to ask Bruce 
>>for that. You get BRICOLAGE - it is free, and it is good - salon.com 
>>runs on it. You inspire some great designer to do the desing (do not ask 
>>a developer to do that, otherwise a designer might want to do some code 
>>and PostgreSQL is lost). Call Mario Garcia (www.mariogarcia.com) - he 
>>will be proud to help. And you take ten fanatic advocacy people to fill 
>>in success stories and case studies. News. Whatever.
>>
>>It does not take that much. It take strong individuals that lead. 
>>However, some people on HACKERS find special pleasure to kill all 
>>initiative. I do not see this for first time...
>>    
>>
>
>I think we have gotten over that hurdle and _most_ agree marketing is a
>priority.
>
I am sorry. Seems I came too late. I did it out of my good feelings.

Iavor

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group Announces

Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> — 2002-12-14T13:26:51Z

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
>  
>
>>It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
>>stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>>    
>>
>
>Consider that a failed experiment.  PostgreSQL is driven by the
>development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.  The
>last thing we need is a marketing department in that mix.
>

I am a long term user of PostgreSQL and I think it suffers from a lack 
of a marketing department.

If you have the best restaurant in town, but no one eats there, what's 
the point?

We all correspond and work on PostgreSQL to make it the best we can. To 
create something "good" that people can use. One of the prime parts of 
that sentence is "people can use." Like it or not, that means getting 
the word out.

MySQL is an appalling database, but people use it, a lot! Why? Because 
they really market it. They push it. They craft deceptive benchmarks 
which show it is better. PostgreSQL doesn't even need to be deceptive.

My company is working on a Suite of applications and PostgreSQL is a key 
component. We will be doing our own local marketing, but it it would 
help if the PostgreSQL core understood that a clean professional looking 
website, geared toward end users would make a big difference.

Furthermore, I think it would be very rewarding for everyone involved if 
we could get some of the "street cred" that MySQL has. PostgreSQL *is* a 
better database in almost every way. If MySQL virtually owns the open 
source mind share for SQL databases, it is our fault.

Peter, Tom, Bruce, et al. you guys do a great job, IMHO PostgreSQL isn't 
lacking in anything technical, as of 7.2, with non-locking vacuum, I 
would consider it a viable database with no caveats. 7.3 is superior.  A 
pure Win32 version would be awesome.

I just think that if we could get people equally talented at spreading 
the word and making the noise, it would make a big difference in the 
number of users. More users eventually translates to more funding or 
development.

Wouldn't you like to say to someone: "I contribute the PostgreSQL 
project" and have them say "Cool" instead of "What's that?"

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Igor Georgiev <gory@alphasoft-bg.com> — 2002-12-14T15:31:58Z

----- Original Message -----
From: "Devrim GэNDэZ" <devrim@tr.net>
To: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> Also, I have something to say about win32 port.
>
> I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version.
> If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install
> Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows
> support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will
> begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz
> support.

Ooops.
I'm a Linux user too, but i have a SCO Openserver, UnixWare, Netware and lot
of windows boxes in my office.
Also I have Informix, Sybase ... etc.
This isn't for my entertainment.
Our customers need to "use a real database server".
But what about small business?
A lot of our small customers can't spent money for dedicated linux box :(((

I spent  2 month in trying open source databases (PostgreSQL, SAP DB,
Interbase/Firebird)
finaly i choose PostgreSQL. Now we port one of our products from Sybase SQL
Anywhere to PostgreSQL.

We have more than 100 customers with small networks (2-10). Most of them
cant't aford dedicated linux box.
Another situation DHL Bulgaria and TNT Worldwide Express Bulgaria are our
customers too.
In HQ they choose windows nt (i don't comment how "smart" is this decision),
pay a lot of money to mr.Gates and now what - we say PostgreSQL is great ,
but ......
( and i have personal contacts with their sysadmins i don't believe they are
"dummy windows users")

So if you don't want windows support just don't use it!!!!!

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@tr.net> — 2002-12-14T15:58:29Z

Hi,

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 13:26, mlw wrote:

> MySQL is an appalling database, but people use it, a lot! Why? Because 
> they really market it. They push it. They craft deceptive benchmarks 
> which show it is better. PostgreSQL doesn't even need to be deceptive.
> 
<snip>
> Furthermore, I think it would be very rewarding for everyone involved if 
> we could get some of the "street cred" that MySQL has. PostgreSQL *is* a 
> better database in almost every way. If MySQL virtually owns the open 
> source mind share for SQL databases, it is our fault.

I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).

PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
*dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call  it a database. I
have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
just 2 months!!! 

If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle.
I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running
PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades
of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL users. 

I've presented about 28 seminars in last 12 months on PostgreSQL... In
all of them, I always tried to avoid talking about MySQL. But always
"hit" Oracle. I'm sick of hearing such sentences : "We paid $$$$ to
Oracle, we hold 1 GB of data!". Even MySQL can hold that amount of data
:-) 

Also, I have something to say about win32 port.

I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version.
If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install
Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows
support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will
begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz
support. 

So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should
be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy
users?

I prefer the first one, if we want to compete with Oracle; not MySQL.

Best regards,

--
Devrim GUNDUZ
TR.NET System Support Specialist
devrim@tr.net

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@tr.net> — 2002-12-14T16:56:24Z

Hi,

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 15:31, Igor Georgiev wrote:

<snip>
> In HQ they choose windows nt (i don't comment how "smart" is this decision),
> pay a lot of money to mr.Gates and now what - we say PostgreSQL is great ,
> but ......
> ( and i have personal contacts with their sysadmins i don't believe they are
> "dummy windows users")

Hey, I did not say that "any windowz user is dummy". If you read my
previous post from the beginning; you'll see that my target is MySQL
users on Windows...

What I've been trying to say that is: If we have a chance to choose, I'd
prefer using PostgreSQL in *nix systems. This is what I've been doing
since 2,5 years. 

> So if you don't want windows support just don't use it!!!!!

I can't, even if I want it; since I do not have a windows installed
computer. ;-)

Anyway, this will be a "windows-linux" discussion; which is offtopic for
this list.

Best regards,
--
Devrim GUNDUZ
TR.NET System Support Specialist
devrim@tr.net

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> — 2002-12-15T06:02:47Z

Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
> I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
> 
> PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
> *dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call  it a database. I
> have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
> just 2 months!!! 

I think you're on to something here, but it's obscured by the way you
said it.

There's no question in my mind that PostgreSQL is superior in almost
every way to MySQL.  For those of us who are technically minded, it
boggles the mind that people would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.  Yet
they do.  And it's important to understand why.

Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough.  It's too
simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be
addressed.

People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to
maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well
documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they
have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL
is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will
consider).

PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor
things (the need to VACUUM, for instance.  The current version makes
the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and
availability, but it really should be something that the database
takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things
except for documentation and support.

MySQL's documentation is very, very good.  My experience with it is
that it's possible, and relatively easy, to find information about
almost anything you might need to know.

PostgreSQL's documentation is good, but not quite as good as MySQL's.
It's not quite as complete.  For instance, I didn't find any
documentation at all in the User's Guide or Administrator's Guide on
creating tables (if I missed it, then that might illustrate that the
documentation needs to be organized slightly differently).  I did find
a little in the tutorial (about the amount that you'd want in a
tutorial), but to find out more I had to go to the SQL statement
reference (in my case I was looking for the means by which one could
create a constraint on a column during table creation time).

The reason this is important is that the documentation is *the* way
people are going to learn the database.  If it's too sparse or too
disorganized, people who don't have a lot of time to spend searching
through the documentation for something may well decide that a
different product (such as MySQL) would suit their needs better.

The documentation for PostgreSQL improves all the time, largely in
response to comments such as this one, and that's a very good thing.
My purpose in bringing this up is to show you what PostgreSQL is up
against in terms of widespread adoption.

> If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle.
> I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running
> PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades
> of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL
> users. 

The experience people have with MySQL varies a lot, and much of it has
to do with the load people put on it.  If MySQL were consistently bad
and unreliable it would have a much smaller following (since it's not
in a monopoly position the way Microsoft is).

But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for
PostgreSQL.  It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of
storing information in an easily retrievable way.

Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than
doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at
least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration.
As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more
capable database engine.  It's a target market that we'd be idiots to
ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using
MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL).

> I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version.
> If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install
> Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows
> support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will
> begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz
> support. 

I hate to break it to you (assuming that I didn't misunderstand what
you said), but Oracle offers a native Windows port of their database
engine, and has done so for some time.  It's *stupid* to ignore the
native Windows market.  There are a lot of people who need a database
engine to store their data and who would benefit from a native Windows
implementation of PostgreSQL, but aren't interested in the additional
burden of setting up a Linux server because they lack the money, time,
or expertise.

> So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should
> be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy
> users?

What makes you think we can't meet the needs of both groups?  The
capabilities of PostgreSQL are (with very few exceptions) a superset
of MySQL's, which means that wherever someone deploys a MySQL server,
they could probably have deployed a PostgreSQL server in its place.
It should be an easy sell: they get a database engine that is
significantly more capable than MySQL for the same low price!

Selling to the Oracle market is going to be harder.  The capabilities
of Oracle are a superset of those of PostgreSQL.  Shops which plan to
deploy a database server and who need the capabilities of PostgreSQL
at a minimum are going to look at Oracle for the same reason that
shops which at a minimum need the capabilities of MySQL would be smart
to look at PostgreSQL: their needs may grow over time and changing the
database mid-project is difficult and time-consuming.  The difference
is that the prices of MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same, while the
prices of PostgreSQL and Oracle are vastly different.

That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done
(quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not*
going after the MySQL market is folly.

-- 
Kevin Brown					      kevin@sysexperts.com

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Your Name <cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com> — 2002-12-15T21:40:33Z

Kevin Brown wrote:
> Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
> > I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
> > 
> > PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
> > *dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call  it a database. I
> > have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
> > just 2 months!!! 
> 
> I think you're on to something here, but it's obscured by the way you
> said it.
> 
> There's no question in my mind that PostgreSQL is superior in almost
> every way to MySQL.  For those of us who are technically minded, it
> boggles the mind that people would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.  Yet
> they do.  And it's important to understand why.
> 
> Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough.  It's too
> simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be
> addressed.

I think it /is/ a significant factor, the point being that the MySQL company 
has been quite activist in pressing MySQL as "the answer," to the point to 
which there's a development strategy called "LAMP" (Linux + Apache + MySQL + 
(Perl|Python|PHP)).

> People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to
> maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well
> documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they
> have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL
> is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will
> consider).

... And the consistent marketing pressure that in essence claims:

 - It's easier to use than any alternative;
 - It's much faster than any other DBMS;
 - It's plenty powerful and robust enough.

As near as I can tell, /none/ of these things are true outside of very 
carefully selected application domains.  But the claims have been presented 
enough times that people actually believe them to be true.

> PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor
> things (the need to VACUUM, for instance.  The current version makes
> the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and
> availability, but it really should be something that the database
> takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things
> except for documentation and support.

I would point to a third thing:  Tools to support "hands-off administration."  
My web hosting provider has a set of tools to let me administer various 
aspects of my site complete with "pretty GUI" that covers:
 - Configuring email accounts, including mailing lists, Spam Assassin, and 
such;
 - Configuring subdomains;
 - Managing files/directories, doing backups;
 - Apache configuration;
 - Cron jobs;
 - A couple of "shopping cart" systems;
 - A "chat room system;"
 - Last, but certainly not least, the ability to manage MySQL databases.

There is no "canned" equivalent for PostgreSQL, which means that ISPs that 
don't have people with DBMS expertise will be inclined to prefer MySQL.  It's 
a better choice for them.

> MySQL's documentation is very, very good.  My experience with it is
> that it's possible, and relatively easy, to find information about
> almost anything you might need to know.
> 
> PostgreSQL's documentation is good, but not quite as good as MySQL's.
> It's not quite as complete.  For instance, I didn't find any
> documentation at all in the User's Guide or Administrator's Guide on
> creating tables (if I missed it, then that might illustrate that the
> documentation needs to be organized slightly differently).  I did find
> a little in the tutorial (about the amount that you'd want in a
> tutorial), but to find out more I had to go to the SQL statement
> reference (in my case I was looking for the means by which one could
> create a constraint on a column during table creation time).
> 
> The reason this is important is that the documentation is *the* way
> people are going to learn the database.  If it's too sparse or too
> disorganized, people who don't have a lot of time to spend searching
> through the documentation for something may well decide that a
> different product (such as MySQL) would suit their needs better.
> 
> The documentation for PostgreSQL improves all the time, largely in
> response to comments such as this one, and that's a very good thing.
> My purpose in bringing this up is to show you what PostgreSQL is up
> against in terms of widespread adoption.

That's probably pretty fair.  I'm using the word "fair" advisedly, too.

If someone objects, saying that PostgreSQL docs /are/ good, keep in mind that 
new users are not mandated to be "fair" about this.  If they have trouble 
finding what they were looking for, they couldn't care less that you think the 
docs are pretty good: /they/ didn't find what /they/ were looking for, and 
that's all they care about.

> > If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle.
> > I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running
> > PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades
> > of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL
> > users. 
> 
> The experience people have with MySQL varies a lot, and much of it has
> to do with the load people put on it.  If MySQL were consistently bad
> and unreliable it would have a much smaller following (since it's not
> in a monopoly position the way Microsoft is).
> 
> But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for
> PostgreSQL.  It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of
> storing information in an easily retrievable way.

Indeed.  People with modest data storage requirements that came in with /no/ 
comprehension of what a "relational" database is may find the limited 
functionality of MySQL perfectly reasonable for their purposes.

And I'll pull in a quote I saw on comp.databases this week that I think is 
quite fabulous:

-------------------------------------------------------------

>>if you mean by "ideal" that it runs on Unix and crashes all the time
>>and needs a bazillion DBA's to keep them running and you want to
>>constantly recover your database and your data files, then you can
>>have ideal.

> A little background on my original comment might be in order. I
> don't tend to use the term "ideal" myself, much. I was referring to
> a comment made fairly frequently in this forum, to the effect that
> "A commercial Relational Databse system has never been built." These
> people exclude Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Informix, Interbase, yada
> yada, because all of them fail, in one way or another to live up to
> the "ideal" of a truly relational system. I have a hard time with such
> terminological rigidity, myself. One can say that all those products
> aren't perfect relational products, but one shouldn't, in my view, say
> that they "aren't even relational".

Why do you think that they are "relational" ? Do they operate on relations ? I 
don't think so. If their primary business is not to operate on relations but 
on bags of rows, calling them relational is misleading.

Just like ODBMS are often database construction kits or persistence libraries, 
SQL DBMSes are a real DBMS (they do provide transactions, recovery, 
concurrency control, some data integrity) + a *relational construction kit*. 
Meaning that by a skillful use of SQL one can come somewhere close to a 
relational database.

But the complexity is left on the user to shoulder, and it is very difficult 
to stretch SQL so that you are still in the realm of relational model. And 
guess what: most users don't and most users suffer as a consequence.

It's even worse than that : very often product documentation and books 
sponsored by the vendors (Oracle press: anyone there ?) simply lie to the 
users by defining relational model in the most ridiculous terms. Actually they 
screwed up their products, they built a multi-billion dollars industry by 
taking agressive shortcuts on the implementation side and transfering the 
complexity to the user and now they try to lie and cheat by proclaiming their 
version of "relational" (not long ago the auto industry maintained seat belts 
and airbags were unnecessarily expensive and not needed).

Best regards,
Costin Cozianu
-------------------------------------------------------------

The interesting argument that Costin makes is that SQL databases are /not/ 
"relational databases," but rather that they are tools that can be used to 
construct relational database systems.

PostgreSQL has enough decent constructs, what with mature implementations of 
foreign keys, views, and constraints that it is fairly easy to build 
relational systems using PostgreSQL.  In contrast, the paucity of supportive 
constructs in MySQL means that neither the database nor the resulting 
applications are likely to be terribly "relational" in the senses intended by 
Codd and Date.

> Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than
> doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at
> least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration.
> As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more
> capable database engine.  It's a target market that we'd be idiots to
> ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using
> MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL).

The unfortunate part is that those that outgrow MySQL are likely to have /two/ 
misconceptions:

1.  That the only /real/ reliability improvement will come in moving to 
something like Oracle;

2.  That PostgreSQL will be a huge step backwards into performance problems 
because it is "so much slower."

That these are misconceptions does not prevent people from believing them.  
(The third deceptive misconception I see is that MySQL is somehow "more 
standard" than some of its competitors.)

> > I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version.
> > If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install
> > Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows
> > support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will
> > begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz
> > support. 
> 
> I hate to break it to you (assuming that I didn't misunderstand what
> you said), but Oracle offers a native Windows port of their database
> engine, and has done so for some time.  It's *stupid* to ignore the
> native Windows market.  There are a lot of people who need a database
> engine to store their data and who would benefit from a native Windows
> implementation of PostgreSQL, but aren't interested in the additional
> burden of setting up a Linux server because they lack the money, time,
> or expertise.

I think it would be a Bad Thing if making PostgreSQL support Windows better 
were to compromise how well it works on Unix, but I haven't seen evidence of 
anyone actually proposing patches that would have that result.

> > So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should
> > be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy
> > users?
> 
> What makes you think we can't meet the needs of both groups?  The
> capabilities of PostgreSQL are (with very few exceptions) a superset
> of MySQL's, which means that wherever someone deploys a MySQL server,
> they could probably have deployed a PostgreSQL server in its place.
> It should be an easy sell: they get a database engine that is
> significantly more capable than MySQL for the same low price!

You can't sell into the "ISP appliance market" until there's something as 
ubiquitous as "PHPMyAdmin" for PostgreSQL.  And note that the "ISP appliance 
market" only cares about this in a very indirect way.  They don't actually use 
the database; their /customers/ do.  And their customers are likely to be 
fairly unsophisticated souls who will use whatever database is given to them.

> Selling to the Oracle market is going to be harder.  The capabilities
> of Oracle are a superset of those of PostgreSQL.  Shops which plan to
> deploy a database server and who need the capabilities of PostgreSQL
> at a minimum are going to look at Oracle for the same reason that
> shops which at a minimum need the capabilities of MySQL would be smart
> to look at PostgreSQL: their needs may grow over time and changing the
> database mid-project is difficult and time-consuming.  The difference
> is that the prices of MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same, while the
> prices of PostgreSQL and Oracle are vastly different.

There are Oracle markets /not/ worth going after, at this point.  You /don't/ 
go after the "ERP" markets or the data center markets where license budgets 
are in millions of dollars, and where it's going to be tough to take 
PostgreSQL seriously when Oracle is entirely prepared to send in a group of 10 
technical marketing people to swamp the customer with marketing information.

What /is/ worth going after is the "small server" market, for departmental 
applications.  It's not "big bucks;" in the Oracle realm, it might lead to a 
licensing fee of $20K.  For $20K, they aren't going to send in a swarm of 
marketers to fight for the account.

> That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done
> (quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not*
> going after the MySQL market is folly.

Indeed.

It is almost a "necessary defense" to counter the deceptive claims that are 
made.  If nobody says anything, people may actually /believe/ that PostgreSQL 
is vastly slower.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
"Power tends  to corrupt and absolute power  corrupts absolutely."  
-- First Baron Acton, 1834 - 1902

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> — 2002-12-16T02:23:27Z

> You can't sell into the "ISP appliance market" until there's something as
> ubiquitous as "PHPMyAdmin" for PostgreSQL.  And note that the "ISP
appliance
> market" only cares about this in a very indirect way.  They don't actually
use
> the database; their /customers/ do.  And their customers are likely to be
> fairly unsophisticated souls who will use whatever database is given to
them.

Hey!  What about phpPgAdmin?

We're actually working on a next generation version atm which is a total
rewrite that:

1. modern php
2. register_globals off, full error checking
3. themable
4. Easily supports all versions
5. etc.

However, even with repeated calls for developers, it's just me and Rob
Treat!

phpPgAdmin does not work with 7.3 so this in an increasingly important
project.

Anyone wanna help? :)

http://phppgdamin.sourceforge.net/

Maybe we should move to gborg?

Chris

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> — 2002-12-16T07:15:49Z

cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
> > Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough.  It's too
> > simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be
> > addressed.
> 
> I think it /is/ a significant factor, the point being that the MySQL company 
> has been quite activist in pressing MySQL as "the answer," to the point to 
> which there's a development strategy called "LAMP" (Linux + Apache + MySQL + 
> (Perl|Python|PHP)).

Oh, I'll certainly not dispute that marketing has had a significant
effect, but I don't think it's the only reason for MySQL's success.

History has a lot to do with it, because it's through history that
momentum gets built up, as it has with MySQL.

> > People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to
> > maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well
> > documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they
> > have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL
> > is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will
> > consider).
> 
> ... And the consistent marketing pressure that in essence claims:
> 
>  - It's easier to use than any alternative;
>  - It's much faster than any other DBMS;
>  - It's plenty powerful and robust enough.
> 
> As near as I can tell, /none/ of these things are true outside of very 
> carefully selected application domains.  But the claims have been presented 
> enough times that people actually believe them to be true.

I agree with you -- now.  But the situation as it is now has not
always been.  Consider where PostgreSQL was 4 years ago.  I believe it
was at version 6 at that time, if I remember correctly.  And as I
recall, many people had very significant issues with it in the key
areas of performance and reliability.  Now, I didn't experience these
things firsthand because I wasn't using it at the time, but it is the
general impression I got when reading the accounts of people who
*were* using it.

MySQL at the time wasn't necessarily any more reliable, but it had one
thing going for it that PostgreSQL didn't: myisamchk.  Even if the
database crashed, you stood a very good chance of being able to
recover your data without having to restore from backups.  PostgreSQL
didn't have this at all: either you had to be a guru with the
PostgreSQL database format or you had to restore from backups.  That
meant that *in practice* MySQL was easier to maintain, even it crashed
more often as PostgreSQL, because the amount of administrative effort
to deal with a MySQL crash was so much less.

> > PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor
> > things (the need to VACUUM, for instance.  The current version makes
> > the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and
> > availability, but it really should be something that the database
> > takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things
> > except for documentation and support.
> 
> I would point to a third thing: Tools to support "hands-off
> administration."  My web hosting provider has a set of tools to let
> me administer various aspects of my site complete with "pretty GUI"
> that covers:
>
>  - Configuring email accounts, including mailing lists, Spam
>    Assassin, and such;
>  - Configuring subdomains;
>  - Managing files/directories, doing backups;
>  - Apache configuration;
>  - Cron jobs;
>  - A couple of "shopping cart" systems;
>  - A "chat room system;"
>  - Last, but certainly not least, the ability to manage MySQL
>    databases.
> 
> There is no "canned" equivalent for PostgreSQL, which means that
> ISPs that don't have people with DBMS expertise will be inclined to
> prefer MySQL.  It's a better choice for them.

This is true, but the only way to combat that is to get PostgreSQL
more widely deployed.  Network effects such as that are common in the
computing world, so it doesn't come as much surprise that the most
popular database engine in the webhosting world is the best supported
one for that role.

It's only because of the relative popularity of MySQL that it has so
much support.  The only way to grow PostgreSQL's popularity is to get
it deployed in situations where the tools available for it are
sufficient.

> > But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for
> > PostgreSQL.  It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of
> > storing information in an easily retrievable way.
> 
> Indeed.  People with modest data storage requirements that came in
> with /no/ comprehension of what a "relational" database is may find
> the limited functionality of MySQL perfectly reasonable for their
> purposes.

This is true, but the biggest problem is that the requirements of a
project often balloon over time, and the demands on the database
backend will also tend to increase.  Because MySQL is rather limited
in its functionality, it doesn't take much until you'll be forced to
use a different database backend.

This is why I view PostgreSQL as a much wiser choice in almost all
cases where you need a database engine.  Your needs will have to be
quite considerable before PostgreSQL's capabilities are no longer
enough.

> PostgreSQL has enough decent constructs, what with mature
> implementations of foreign keys, views, and constraints that it is
> fairly easy to build relational systems using PostgreSQL.  In
> contrast, the paucity of supportive constructs in MySQL means that
> neither the database nor the resulting applications are likely to be
> terribly "relational" in the senses intended by Codd and Date.

This is true, but what everyone fails to ask is whether or not any
particular customer really *cares* about that.  The customer isn't
interested in whether or not an application is "relational", they care
whether or not the application does the job it's supposed to.  How
"relational" it is is an implementation detail to them.

The reason that PostgreSQL wins over MySQL is not so much that it's
easier to build relational systems with it, but that it's easier to
build *reliable* systems with it.  That building the system in a
relational way is one way to achieve that is, again, an implementation
detail.

> > Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than
> > doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at
> > least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration.
> > As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more
> > capable database engine.  It's a target market that we'd be idiots to
> > ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using
> > MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL).
> 
> The unfortunate part is that those that outgrow MySQL are likely to
> have /two/ misconceptions:
> 
> 1.  That the only /real/ reliability improvement will come in moving to 
> something like Oracle;
>
> 2.  That PostgreSQL will be a huge step backwards into performance problems 
> because it is "so much slower."

This is because people lack familiarity with PostgreSQL.  That's where
marketing PostgreSQL well comes in.

The performance misconception is the result of history.  At one time
PostgreSQL *was* much slower than MySQL.  People need to be informed
of the current state of affairs.

> That these are misconceptions does not prevent people from believing them.  
> (The third deceptive misconception I see is that MySQL is somehow "more 
> standard" than some of its competitors.)

The third misconception happens because most people equate "standard"
with "popular".  And in the real world, they're not entirely wrong to
do so, unfortunately.

> I think it would be a Bad Thing if making PostgreSQL support Windows
> better were to compromise how well it works on Unix, but I haven't
> seen evidence of anyone actually proposing patches that would have
> that result.

I agree, and I also believe that the maintainers would not accept a
patch that compromised the performance under Unix for the sake of
supporting Windows.  And rightly so: such a patch would indicate that
the people doing the Windows port haven't solved the problem properly.

> You can't sell into the "ISP appliance market" until there's
> something as ubiquitous as "PHPMyAdmin" for PostgreSQL.

But there is: PHPPgAdmin (or whatever it's called these days.  I seem
to remember that they changed the name of it).  Unfortunately it's not
as well known, largely because PostgreSQL itself isn't as well known.

> And note that the "ISP appliance market" only cares about this in a
> very indirect way.  They don't actually use the database; their
> /customers/ do.  And their customers are likely to be fairly
> unsophisticated souls who will use whatever database is given to
> them.

And if that's *really* true, then providers will do just as well to
provide PostgreSQL as they would MySQL (since their customers will
just use whatever database they're given).  So it's really a question
of selling the providers on it, which (as you mentioned earlier) is in
part a matter of giving them the tools they need to make managing a
PostgreSQL installation easy.

> There are Oracle markets /not/ worth going after, at this point.
> You /don't/ go after the "ERP" markets or the data center markets
> where license budgets are in millions of dollars, and where it's
> going to be tough to take PostgreSQL seriously when Oracle is
> entirely prepared to send in a group of 10 technical marketing
> people to swamp the customer with marketing information.

This is why marketing PostgreSQL *honestly* is so important.  If it
won't do the ERP job well, then it behooves those who are promoting it
to realize that and restrain themselves appropriately.

> What /is/ worth going after is the "small server" market, for
> departmental applications.  It's not "big bucks;" in the Oracle
> realm, it might lead to a licensing fee of $20K.  For $20K, they
> aren't going to send in a swarm of marketers to fight for the
> account.

And this is exactly one of the markets that MySQL is currently
targeting.  Of course, MS-SQL is *also* targeting this market, with a
reasonable amount of success.  PostgreSQL is a *perfect* fit for this
kind of operation, and it's one of the reasons that it really *is*
important to have a native Windows port.

> > That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done
> > (quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not*
> > going after the MySQL market is folly.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> It is almost a "necessary defense" to counter the deceptive claims
> that are made.  If nobody says anything, people may actually
> /believe/ that PostgreSQL is vastly slower.

The way you counter such deceptive claims is to provide proof that
those claims are wrong.  Point them at the head-to-head comparison on
the PHPBuilder site.  Prove to them that PostgreSQL is in the same
league (if not better) as MySQL in the performance arena.  And for
deity's sake, show them how much *less* work they'd have to do under
PostgreSQL because of its referential integrity features.  I really
think most people would be willing to sacrifice a small bit of speed
if it meant doing a whole lot less work.

Copied to the advocacy group because of the relevance.

-- 
Kevin Brown					      kevin@sysexperts.com

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Medi Montaseri <medi.montaseri@intransa.com> — 2002-12-16T21:15:46Z

Something I have done at little cost was to submit a request for a few 
books on
PostgreSQL to my local library and I check them out once in while and 
see that
others are also checking them out.....

I agree with poor level of documentation....the skeleton is 
there....perhpas we could
have some volunteers write up some parts (or add more....)...

Kevin Brown wrote:

>Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
>  
>
>>I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
>>
>>PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
>>*dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call  it a database. I
>>have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
>>just 2 months!!! 
>>    
>>
>
>I think you're on to something here, but it's obscured by the way you
>said it.
>
>There's no question in my mind that PostgreSQL is superior in almost
>every way to MySQL.  For those of us who are technically minded, it
>boggles the mind that people would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL.  Yet
>they do.  And it's important to understand why.
>
>Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough.  It's too
>simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be
>addressed.
>
>People use MySQL because it's very easy to set up, relatively easy to
>maintain (when something doesn't go wrong, that is), is very well
>documented and supported, and is initially adequate for the task they
>have in mind (that the task may change significantly such that MySQL
>is no longer adequate is something only those with experience will
>consider).
>
>PostgreSQL has come a long way and, with the exception of a few minor
>things (the need to VACUUM, for instance.  The current version makes
>the VACUUM requirement almost a non-issue as regards performance and
>availability, but it really should be something that the database
>takes care of itself), is equivalent to MySQL in the above things
>except for documentation and support.
>
>MySQL's documentation is very, very good.  My experience with it is
>that it's possible, and relatively easy, to find information about
>almost anything you might need to know.
>
>PostgreSQL's documentation is good, but not quite as good as MySQL's.
>It's not quite as complete.  For instance, I didn't find any
>documentation at all in the User's Guide or Administrator's Guide on
>creating tables (if I missed it, then that might illustrate that the
>documentation needs to be organized slightly differently).  I did find
>a little in the tutorial (about the amount that you'd want in a
>tutorial), but to find out more I had to go to the SQL statement
>reference (in my case I was looking for the means by which one could
>create a constraint on a column during table creation time).
>
>The reason this is important is that the documentation is *the* way
>people are going to learn the database.  If it's too sparse or too
>disorganized, people who don't have a lot of time to spend searching
>through the documentation for something may well decide that a
>different product (such as MySQL) would suit their needs better.
>
>The documentation for PostgreSQL improves all the time, largely in
>response to comments such as this one, and that's a very good thing.
>My purpose in bringing this up is to show you what PostgreSQL is up
>against in terms of widespread adoption.
>
>  
>
>>If we want to "sell" PostgreSQL, we should talk about, maybe, Oracle.
>>I have never took care of MySQL said. I just know that I'm running
>>PostgreSQL since 2,5 years and I only stopped it "JUST" before upgrades
>>of PostgreSQL. It's just *working*; which is unfamiliar to MySQL
>>users. 
>>    
>>
>
>The experience people have with MySQL varies a lot, and much of it has
>to do with the load people put on it.  If MySQL were consistently bad
>and unreliable it would have a much smaller following (since it's not
>in a monopoly position the way Microsoft is).
>
>But you're mistaken if you believe that MySQL isn't competition for
>PostgreSQL.  It is, because it serves the same purpose: a means of
>storing information in an easily retrievable way.
>
>Selling potential MySQL users on PostgreSQL should be easier than
>doing the same for Oracle users because potential MySQL users have at
>least already decided that a free database is worthy of consideration.
>As their needs grow beyond what MySQL offers, they'll look for a more
>capable database engine.  It's a target market that we'd be idiots to
>ignore, and we do so at our peril (the more people out there using
>MySQL, the fewer there are using PostgreSQL).
>
>  
>
>>I'm a Linux user. I'm happy that PostgreSQL does not have win32 version.
>>If someone wants to use a real database server, then they should install
>>Linux (or *bsd,etc). This is what Oracle offers,too. Native Windows
>>support will cause some problems; such as some dummy windows users will
>>begin using it. I do not believe that PostgreSQL needs native windowz
>>support. 
>>    
>>
>
>I hate to break it to you (assuming that I didn't misunderstand what
>you said), but Oracle offers a native Windows port of their database
>engine, and has done so for some time.  It's *stupid* to ignore the
>native Windows market.  There are a lot of people who need a database
>engine to store their data and who would benefit from a native Windows
>implementation of PostgreSQL, but aren't interested in the additional
>burden of setting up a Linux server because they lack the money, time,
>or expertise.
>
>  
>
>>So, hackers (I'm not a hacker) should decide whether PostgreSQL should
>>be used widely in real database apps, or it should be used even by dummy
>>users?
>>    
>>
>
>What makes you think we can't meet the needs of both groups?  The
>capabilities of PostgreSQL are (with very few exceptions) a superset
>of MySQL's, which means that wherever someone deploys a MySQL server,
>they could probably have deployed a PostgreSQL server in its place.
>It should be an easy sell: they get a database engine that is
>significantly more capable than MySQL for the same low price!
>
>Selling to the Oracle market is going to be harder.  The capabilities
>of Oracle are a superset of those of PostgreSQL.  Shops which plan to
>deploy a database server and who need the capabilities of PostgreSQL
>at a minimum are going to look at Oracle for the same reason that
>shops which at a minimum need the capabilities of MySQL would be smart
>to look at PostgreSQL: their needs may grow over time and changing the
>database mid-project is difficult and time-consuming.  The difference
>is that the prices of MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same, while the
>prices of PostgreSQL and Oracle are vastly different.
>
>That's not to say that going after the Oracle market shouldn't be done
>(quite the opposite, provided it's done honestly), only that *not*
>going after the MySQL market is folly.
>
>
>  
>