On Saturday 14 August 2004 01:05, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> > 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?
>
> The Press Release is to announce PostgreSQL 8.0.0 ... by what logic would
> you promote a competing product?
>
The logic that says we are promoting a feature of the "postgresql
project" (replication/win32) and that we should give people the best tool for
the job even if it is commercial (mammoth/powergres)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Better Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
