> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Caduto [mailto:tony.caduto@amsoftwaredesign.com]
> Sent: 24 January 2006 13:56
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Does this look ethical to you?
>
> Those companies simply bundle pgAdmin III, they don't sell
> it, there is
> a big difference. I know for a fact the ones you are talking
> about and
> the version they bundle have no changes over the stock one at all.
One of the two has extensively modified it. I don't know about the
other.
Whether or not the sell it seperately is not the point though - they do
sell it as part of the product suite they offer.
> I don't think mentioning a product as a alternative to pgAdmin III is
> wrong since pgAdmin III has such a big advantage being
> distributed with
> the Windows version of Postgresql. It almost has monopoly
> written on it
> since the user is not given any idea that there is anything else
> available. At least you are not forced to install it, but still a
> HUGE,HUGE advantage over any other competing product.
It's open source and is certainly the best option a present to bundle
with the installer. If you want to open source PG Lightning Admin, and
add the missing features that pgAdmin has such as Slony support, job
scheduling, graphical explain and UI translations into a number of
different languages, then I'm sure Magnus and I would be happy to look
at including it.
> pgAdmin does not play fair either, if you want to talk fair
> maybe a link
> should be placed in the windows pgAdmin installer informing users of
> other comercially available options.
By that token, every Linux distribution would have to tell users about
MS Windows whilst it was installing. Does the fact that they don't mean
they aren't playing fair? Should the PostgreSQL distributions also
mention Oracle or DB2?
Regards, Dave
