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 Press Release is not to announce Slony ... mentioning Slony should be
in the context of available replication solutions as add ons ...
mentioning that there are more then one replication solution available
makes sense, focusing on just one doesn't ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
