I think that when considering install, it is very
important, if not critical, that we all understand who
is doing the install. Certainly if it is a person
much like us, meaning people on the
hackers/development list, we can all handle more terse
installs. Personally, I like the freedom of choices,
and not having a result of hundreds of megs that I
know are not required.
On the other hand, we are really a minority. The
masses certainly like simple installs, regardless of
just how many megs are used, needed or not. If the
masses really cared, then Microsoft would be in
trouble. But, as we can see in the market place, they
don't. In fact, most people think more is better.
Somehow they think 2 CDROMs is better than 1 CDROM.
So, if it takes an extra 200 meg to make a glitsy
install with little videos expounding on how great
Postgresql is, then for that user, it will make all of
the difference. We need to remember who the audience
is. We cannot gain mass market share otherwise.
My 2 cents, won't buy coffee,
Jordan Henderson
--- Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 16:36:57 -0400,
> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
> >
> > Ease of use is VERY important, but few suggestions
> that address this are
> > ever really accepted. Yes, focusing on the
> functionality is the primary
> > concern, but "how" you set it up and deploy it is
> VERY important. You guys
> > need to remember, people are coming from a world
> where MySQL, Oracle, and
> > MSSQL all have nice setup programs.
>
> "nice" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have
> used Oracle's installer
> to install a client and was not amused by it need
> hundreds of megabtyes
> to do a client install.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
