On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How do you come to that conclusion? I go to
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/download/
>>> and what I see is a pile of links to community-supplied binaries,
>>> and a link to EDB's version, and a link to BitNami's version.
>
>> If you click on OSX, the first option is a commercial one.
>> If you click on Linux, the first option is a commercial one (BTW, isn't
>> it better to push the OS supplied pacakged version here?).
>
> Hmm, aren't those redundant with the Postgres Plus link on the upper
> page?
Postgres Plus is not the same as what's on those pages. Postgres Plus
is our own distribution, whilst the one on the sub pages is modelled
on the Win32 installer and is 'PostgreSQL' branded.
> I tend to find this a bit misleading: both the front page and the
> linked-to pages give the impression that you are being pointed to
> community-supplied binaries.
The front page quite clearly states that Postgres Plus is a third
party distribution.
The 'community' pages contain only 'PostgreSQL' downloads, which come
from postgresql.org, EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt, Fink, BSD Ports and
a whole host of other third party sites. Each of which is labelled to
say who packaged it, and their company where applicable.
I'm happy to clarify that wording.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
