On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>>> I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should
>>>> change.
>>>> I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL
>>>> products in
>>>> our documentation.
>>>
>>> I think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just
>>> briefly with a
>>> link. Bizgres MPP, ExtenDB, uni/cluster, and Mammoth Replicator.
>>
>> And to further this I would expect that it would be a subsection..
>> e.g;
>> a <sect2> or <sect3>. I think the open source version should
>> absolutely
>> get top billing though.
>
> I am not inclined to add commercial offerings. If people wanted
> commercial database offerings, they can get them from companies that
> advertize. People are coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions,
> and I think mentioning commercial ones doesn't make sense.
>
> If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't
> worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies.
I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming
to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions.
I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have.
I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial
or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of them.
A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions
that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just
because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql
and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document.
Cheers, Steve
