On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> However, I also believe that Mammoth Replicator would deserve equal
>>> mention, especially since Mammoth Replicator is more mature and they
>>> really are different products that serve a similar but not identical
>>> purpose.
>>
>>
>> So even though Slony is free and open source and Mammoth Replicator is
>> proprietary, you think we should give them equal mention?
>
> 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 ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
