Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On 04/11/2016 10:46 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com
> <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 04/11/2016 10:35 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
>
>         On 04/11/2016 10:23 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>             2. Version *numbers* aren't nearly as identifiable as using
>             names. This
>             is something that Ubuntu has on us and something we should
>             consider. For
>             example, most people don't say I am running 15.10, they say,
>             I am
>             running Wily.
>
>
>         FWIW, I regard Debian/Ubuntu names a huge barrier to adoption.
>         They're
>         a cute "insider" thing, but confusing to new users.
>
>
>     Interesting, that isn't my experience. Even customers say, "I am
>     running Precise or Trusty" and then I have to remember which version
>     number that is.

So, imagine that you're learning to use Ubuntu for the first time.

1. You find a software package which requires "Trusty or later".  How do
you know if you can run it?

2. "About" says you're running Ubuntu 14.04, but to sign up for an
alternate repo (like PostgreSQL), you need to sign up for it by name.
How do you figure out what the name is?

3. You have a bunch of servers running "Pangolin".  Do you need to worry
about upgrading those soon due to EOL?

4. You are running "Saucy".  How many upgrades have you missed?

This is worse for Debian, where the cute names aren't even alphabetical.
 Worst yet is Apple, where the names have no clear progression and are
stupidly similar (leopard vs. snow leopard).

The "cute names" thing assumes a insider level knowledge of mapping
names to releases; it assumes that you work with that distro *all the
time*.  Which is fairly hostile to newbies and people responsible for
administering hundreds of servers using a assortment of distros and
OSes.  I think Apple can count on that level of fanboyism; I don't think
anyone else should.

For that reason, I would be strongly opposed to adopting a "cute name"
scheme for Postgres.

>
> FWIW, I believe redhat also has such "code names". Except really
> *nobody* use them there...

Correct, they are used internally only.

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)