On Saturday 14 August 2004 00:27, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Yes. It is based on best tool for the job, not OSS versus non OSS.
> >
> >> By that logic, if Powergres was based on 8.0 code, we would mention that
> >> along with the Win32 port mention? That doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> > Yep. See above.
> >
> >> (Powergres is threaded so it would have some distinction compared to our
> >> community Win32 implementation.) ]
> >
> > Yes, and if it was based on 8.0 code -- I would probably promote it over
> > our implementation because it is threaded and in theory would perform
> > better than our implementation. Obviously I would test and confirm.
>
> Up until this, I agreed ... on this one, the press release is about
> PostgreSQL, the Project ... why would you mention a proprietary
> alternative to that which you are announcing? This would be like
> Jan/Afilias PRng Slony and mentioning Mammoth ... that would just be weird
> ...
>
> We aren't annoucing Slony, we are promoting Replication ... so mentioning
> the various replication solutions does make sense ...
>
But by the above logic, we are promoting windows compatibility, so mentioning
the various windows solutions could be argued for as well. You got that
number for nusphere handy?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Better Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
