Thread: Aberdeen Study on OS RDBMS: exceprts and breakdown.

The Aberdeen group recently released a study on open source databases,
focusing on BerkleyDB, My$QL, and PostgreSQL.  Sleepycat Software (the
makers of BerkleyDB) have released a copy of the report available at:
ttp://www.sleepycat.com/aberdeenwp (registration required).  You can
read the press release for yourselves, though I thought I would point
out one item I thought was interesting; they refer to BerkleyDB as "the
most widely used application-specific data management software in the
world with over 200 million deployments".  I have no reason to believe
this isn't true, but I do notice that it does rub against my$ql's slogan
of being "the worlds most popular open source database".

Anyway, it is worth noting that the report is slanted to show BerkleyDB
in a positive light, but I wanted to included some excerpts of the full
report below that I think are relevant to our group:

--
Motivations For Choosing Open Source Databases (For ISV's)
    *    Control over maintenance and support
    * Availability of source code
    * Cost, such as for licenses and subsequent upgrades (Some cite
development cost and TCO as well, but others find that open source
database development cost and TCO are greater than for a proprietary
alternative.)
    * Flexibility to add new features as needed (Note that users rarely
change open source databases.)
    * Reliability

--
In it's description of my$ql, it describes them as providing the
following features (among others)
"* MySQL is a full relational database with SQL support.
* ACID (atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability) compliance
(That is, MySQL guarantees that some system failure will not corrupt the
database and make it transactionally inconsistent.)"

These two bullet-points are important for this group because one of the
messages that we often use in comparisons between our systems is that
my$ql is not a full relational database, and that it is not truly ACID
compliant. While I tend to agree with those statements, obviously the
general mindset does not agree with that.

It mentions my$ql as lacking all the usual suspects like views/triggers
etc... but also lists this:
"* Incremental and online/parallel backup/restore"

which I find a little bit interesting because afaik they do offer this
as a proprietary add on solution.

--
The following is their general description of PostgreSQL, my comments
are surrounded by ##

The PostgreSQL Open Source Database

PostgreSQL is a full relational database with SQL support. Many users
view PostgreSQL as more complex and powerful than MySQL, but much less
powerful than an enterprise database. Interestingly, some knowledgeable
MySQL users view MySQL as more scalable than PostgreSQL.

# I think this links back to my$ql's ability to scale up on read only
type database systems, and having some big names associated with this
type of use (yahoo for instance). The other half being our legacy of
being a "slow" database.  #


PostgreSQL offers the following key features beyond the relational
“basics”:

    * Tablespace backups, i.e., the ability to back up a set of tables
rather than the entire database — with limits
    * ODBC support
    * Online backup (with limits)
    * ACID compliance for transactions
    * Deadlock detection
    * Unicode support (non-U.S. character sets)
    * Views (read-only, i.e., with limits)
    * Stored procedures and triggers (with limits on
programming-language support, including no support for Java)

# I thought it was interesting in how many of ours were labeled "with
limits" while the other descriptions did not have this so much...
however I find this one especially interesting, since we have support
for 10+ languages and the ability to add more. I think this stems from
not having all of these languages available "out of the box", and
potentially from the time frame they were studying in. #

    * Object table and data-type support

PostgreSQL does not offer the following key features typically provided
in enterprise databases:

    * Incremental and parallel backup/restore
    * Encryption (security)
    * Deadlock detection

# but up above you said we did have it... ?  I'd grant that it may not
be as robust as some of the commercial guys, but it's there. #

    * Row-level locking (typically required by large packaged
applications) — although PostgreSQL does offer alternative sub-table
locking schemes

# uh... we do have row level locking, and in fact we have better than
row level locking #

    * Bit-mapped indexing (for large data warehouses)
    * A single GUI administrative interface

# again... nothing packaged with the server itself, though we do have
several options in this area #

    * View update/insert/delete

# cough...rules..cough#

PostgreSQL users indicate that improvements in some areas are
contemplated, but the next version of PostgreSQL may come as late as two
years from now, and the community that drives PostgreSQL development is
not committing to any particular improvements.

# uh... two years out... i couldn't come up with an explanation for
that...  well, many of these features are planned for in 7.5, and I
wonder if it is worth coming up with a "response" to the information
above #


--

Key Characteristics of Enterprise Databases

Scalability

 OLTP scalability technologies:
· SMP support
· Clustering support
· Multithreading

Decision-support scalability technologies:
· Query optimization
· Replication
· Cost optimization
· Bit-mapped indexing

“Mixed” scalability technologies:
· Stored procedures
· Distributed database synchronization (2PC)
· Running the application “inside the database”
· Load balancing

Robustness/administrative costs

· Online, parallel load and backup/recovery, monitoring, and metadata
management
· “Zero-administration” tools and automated reorganization
· Cross-database tools

Flexibility

· Standards support
 - SQL- Java/EJBs
 - XML·
 Complex-data-type support
 - Rich-media support
 - File support
- Object and object-relational technology
 - Content management technology

· Integration with infrastructure software
 - Application servers
 - Infrastructure APIs and component libraries

Programmer-productivity support

· High-level development environment support
·Java programming support
 ·Frameworks


Of the above, the following four were listed as critical to
distinguishing between high end and low end DBMS:
   1. Stored procedures (and triggers)
   2. Replication (and two-phase commit)
   3. SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) support
   4. Cost-based query optimization

# Seems we are pretty darn close... but read on#

Many are clearly deficient in at least the first three aforementioned
technologies — they do not offer (or offer limited) stored procedures,
do not offer two-phase commit, and do not offer exceptional
multiprocessing support. However, interviewees’ perception is that in
many cases, today’s open source databases are enterprise class in
scalability and robustness. Moreover, like databases offered by lower
profile proprietary suppliers, such as Pervasive and Progress, open
source databases offer exceptional manageability, requiring little
maintenance compared with major enterprise databases.

--

Key Potential Applications for Open Source Databases

* Financial -- Investment, credit card, bank, insurance
* Telecommunications -- Telephone companies and PTTs, wireless suppliers
* Retail -- Department store chains, restaurants
* Manufacturing -- Car makers, such as General Motors and Ford;
equipment makers, such as Caterpillar; semiconductor suppliers
* Health care -- Hospitals and hospital chains
* Oil/gas/aerospace -- Energy suppliers, such as Exxon Mobil; aerospace
manufacturers, such as Boeing
* Travel/entertainment -- Hotels; luxury cruise lines; television,
movie, and music companies
* Transportation -- Truck, train, and shipping companies
* Government -- NSA, Department of Defense
* Education -- Universities

# It would be interesting have someone gather a comprehensive list of
large businesses (global 5000 maybe?) that use postgresql in each of the
major markets listed above #

--

"Although some open source suppliers have fallen by the wayside as the
Web frenzy subsided and they were forced to identify sources of revenue,
it now appears clear that several open source databases — including
MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Sleepycat Software’s Berkeley DB — are here for
the long haul."

I thought this was important to note since we've recently seen several
articles that refer back to the demise of Great Bridge...

--

In a who is using open source databases section, then mention "Most
applications involved a substantial transaction stream of reads, with
relatively few — but a significant number of — complex queries and
updates." which would be a good indicator of why my$ql and berkelydb are
so much more popular.

--

when asked why the ISV's chose an OS DB "All interviewees immediately
cited “price” (license cost) as the main reason."

--

when asked what they would like to see from their current open source
vendor... "One interviewee cited full-text indexing, one cited triggers
and a “geographic information system (GIS),” one cited rollback, and one
cited a GUI “control center.”"... seems they should all be looking at
postgresql a little closer :-)  Also in response to that question was
this telling line.. "Two-phase commit is not available in PostgreSQL.
Every PostgreSQL user requested this feature." ... makes you wish you
email those folks about the patches that have been posted to -hackers
:-\

--

finally, of the respondents in the study whom were using proprietary
databases for the past several years, none expressed interest in trying
an open source database package.

--

Hope this was informative for everyone here, and this will hopefully
help give some inspiration to new ideas on how we can push forward
postgresql adoption in the future.



Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert Treat wrote:
> PostgreSQL users indicate that improvements in some areas are
> contemplated, but the next version of PostgreSQL may come as late as two
> years from now, and the community that drives PostgreSQL development is
> not committing to any particular improvements.
>
> # uh... two years out... i couldn't come up with an explanation for
> that...  well, many of these features are planned for in 7.5, and I
> wonder if it is worth coming up with a "response" to the information
> above #
>

These guys obviously didn't do much work in generating the report.  We
have never hard two years between a release, in fact never more than
one.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > PostgreSQL users indicate that improvements in some areas are
> > contemplated, but the next version of PostgreSQL may come as late as two
> > years from now, and the community that drives PostgreSQL development is
> > not committing to any particular improvements.
> >
> > # uh... two years out... i couldn't come up with an explanation for
> > that...  well, many of these features are planned for in 7.5, and I
> > wonder if it is worth coming up with a "response" to the information
> > above #
> >
>
> These guys obviously didn't do much work in generating the report.  We
> have never hard two years between a release, in fact never more than
> one.

You know, these distortions make me mad, but after seven years, I should
be used to it.  We continue to grow despite these distortions, and I
suppose one day we will be big enough that these will not sway people.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Thursday 01 April 2004 04:04, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > These guys obviously didn't do much work in generating the report.  We
> > have never hard two years between a release, in fact never more than
> > one.
>
> You know, these distortions make me mad, but after seven years, I should
> be used to it.  We continue to grow despite these distortions, and I
> suppose one day we will be big enough that these will not sway people.

These reports influence some of the people some of the time, but not all the
people all of the time. Of course, the degree of influence seldom has
anything to do with the quality of the report.

I'm a little puzzled that the authors didn't seem to contact anyone on the
lists (or check the manuals in some cases). It's the sort of thing we're
supposed to catch and field with -advocacy too.

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

On Wednesday 31 March 2004 21:44, Robert Treat wrote:
> The Aberdeen group recently released a study on open source databases,
> focusing on BerkleyDB, My$QL, and PostgreSQL.

> I would point
> out one item I thought was interesting; they refer to BerkleyDB as "the
> most widely used application-specific data management software in the
> world with over 200 million deployments".  I have no reason to believe
> this isn't true, but I do notice that it does rub against my$ql's slogan
> of being "the worlds most popular open source database".

Ah, the difference between "data management software" a database, a DBMS,
RDBMS...

> The following is their general description of PostgreSQL, my comments
> are surrounded by ##
>
> The PostgreSQL Open Source Database
>
> PostgreSQL is a full relational database with SQL support. Many users
> view PostgreSQL as more complex and powerful than MySQL, but much less
> powerful than an enterprise database. Interestingly, some knowledgeable
> MySQL users view MySQL as more scalable than PostgreSQL.
>
> # I think this links back to my$ql's ability to scale up on read only
> type database systems, and having some big names associated with this
> type of use (yahoo for instance). The other half being our legacy of
> being a "slow" database.  #

This is what irritates me - looks like information, but in fact is second-hand
gossip. "Many users view X as Y" - well, are they right? Under what
circumstances? When is the situation reversed?

Although it'd be better from an advocacy viewpoint if they said "PG users said
it scales better than MySQL" it wouldn't be any more useful as information.

> PostgreSQL offers the following key features beyond the relational
> “basics”:
>
>     * Tablespace backups, i.e., the ability to back up a set of tables
> rather than the entire database — with limits

Um - can we do multiple tables at once?

>     * ODBC support
>     * Online backup (with limits)

Are they talking about PITR as the limit here?

> PostgreSQL does not offer the following key features typically provided
> in enterprise databases:
>
>     * Incremental and parallel backup/restore
>     * Encryption (security)
>     * Deadlock detection
>
> # but up above you said we did have it... ?  I'd grant that it may not
> be as robust as some of the commercial guys, but it's there. #

I'm puzzled as to what they want from encryption - we do SSL on the
connections (don't we?) and you can encrypt the data in specific columns for
passwords etc.
Are they talking about encrypting the actual data blocks as they get written
to disk? If so, I guess you could run on an encrypted filesystem.

>     * Bit-mapped indexing (for large data warehouses)
>     * A single GUI administrative interface
>
> # again... nothing packaged with the server itself, though we do have
> several options in this area #

We get quite a few requests for a GUI on the lists too. Maybe we need to look
at providing some pointers from the download page.

>     * View update/insert/delete
>
> # cough...rules..cough#
>
> PostgreSQL users indicate that improvements in some areas are
> contemplated, but the next version of PostgreSQL may come as late as two
> years from now, and the community that drives PostgreSQL development is
> not committing to any particular improvements.
>
> # uh... two years out... i couldn't come up with an explanation for
> that...  well, many of these features are planned for in 7.5, and I
> wonder if it is worth coming up with a "response" to the information
> above #

As Bruce says, the 2 years thing is extremely puzzling. Especially as they
could have just looked at the release notes to see actual dates.

> when asked why the ISV's chose an OS DB "All interviewees immediately
> cited “price” (license cost) as the main reason."

I'm sure they said that, but I think it's actually convenience and
price/performance.

> when asked what they would like to see from their current open source
> vendor... "One interviewee cited full-text indexing, one cited triggers
> and a “geographic information system (GIS),” one cited rollback, and one
> cited a GUI “control center.”"... seems they should all be looking at
> postgresql a little closer :-)  Also in response to that question was
> this telling line.. "Two-phase commit is not available in PostgreSQL.
> Every PostgreSQL user requested this feature." ... makes you wish you
> email those folks about the patches that have been posted to -hackers

EVERY PostgreSQL user - all of them? Were they prompted, is there some sort of
conspiracy? Or were they asked to name their "top 100 most desired features".

> finally, of the respondents in the study whom were using proprietary
> databases for the past several years, none expressed interest in trying
> an open source database package.

Not surprising, I suppose. If you asked them whether they'd switch to another
proprietary platform free of charge, they'd probably still say no. Expensive
proposition, switching.

> Hope this was informative for everyone here, and this will hopefully
> help give some inspiration to new ideas on how we can push forward
> postgresql adoption in the future.

Thanks Robert - most interesting.

Should we write an open letter response (need to be carefully pitched though).

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

On Thu, 31 Mar 2004, Robert Treat wrote:

> The Aberdeen group recently released a study on open source databases,

I hope their misrepresentation of PostgreSQL is some kind of April fools'
day joke.

Thanks for the analysis.

Gavin

Folks,

> Should we write an open letter response (need to be carefully pitched
> though).

I've already contacted Sleepycat, via a conversation we were having about
OSCON.     Please let me see if that bears fruit before doing anything else.

And please do keep in mind that however many innaccuracies the report may have
contained regarding PostgreSQL in the full report, the *summary* was very
favorable to us.    And how many people do you think are going to read the
full report vs. the summary?

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

>>
>> PostgreSQL users indicate that improvements in some areas are
>> contemplated, but the next version of PostgreSQL may come as late as
>> two
>> years from now, and the community that drives PostgreSQL development
>> is
>> not committing to any particular improvements.
>>
>> # uh... two years out... i couldn't come up with an explanation for
>> that...  well, many of these features are planned for in 7.5, and I
>> wonder if it is worth coming up with a "response" to the information
>> above #
>
> As Bruce says, the 2 years thing is extremely puzzling. Especially as
> they
> could have just looked at the release notes to see actual dates.

I think this is a case of the investigators not being in the know of
where to look for the information.  The release notes aren't always the
first place someone who is not familiar with PostgreSQL will look.  End
users of Postgres are sometimes shielded from the actual setup and
source code by their sysadmins.  It is not that they are incapable of
reading through the distribution files, they just spend their time in
psql, pgadmin, and the website documentation.

I find the weekly news to be a great summary of what's going on when
I'm away from the lists but for those who aren't on the announce list
it takes a while for them to get there.  I think posting the weekly
news to the website front page would be a great way to reach out to
those channels.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Folks,
>
> > Should we write an open letter response (need to be carefully pitched
> > though).
>
> I've already contacted Sleepycat, via a conversation we were having about
> OSCON.     Please let me see if that bears fruit before doing anything else.

They seemed like nice folks when I met them a couple years ago, so I'm
sure they'll straighten things out.

The oddest line in the whole report to me was:

"However, Aberdeen's interviews also show that today's proprietary
installed bases and ISVs show little interest in replacing existing
databases with open source ones - leaving open source databases with only
so many places to expand in..."

Considering how many times we see requests for converting Oracle / MSSQL /
DB2 databases to Postgresql, I think their people swim in different waters
than the Postgresql people so.  And with that being the tone of the
article, it seems pretty clear that what they're selling sleepycat's
software for is the imbedded / single user / applicance market.

I doubt there's any malice behind their words, but the research was pretty
poor on all the databases covered, and they left out firebirdSQL which is
easily in the same realm as the other open source databases for having
solid code, a cult like following, and its own set of features that set it
apart.

Scott,

> I doubt there's any malice behind their words, but the research was pretty
> poor on all the databases covered, and they left out firebirdSQL which is
> easily in the same realm as the other open source databases for having
> solid code, a cult like following, and its own set of features that set it
> apart.

What's really peculiar about this is that I participated in an Aberdeen study
specifically on PostgreSQL as a replacement for Oracle.   So the Aberdeen
folks have *extensive* information about PostgreSQL, its features, and its
development process.   But apparently the researchers don't share
information.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:

> We get quite a few requests for a GUI on the lists too. Maybe we
> need to look at providing some pointers from the download page.

I was thinking, lately, of the possibility that what might really be
desirable to some people are big, honkin' packages of all the bells
and whistles.  The disadvantage I see is the utter folly of
downloading all that instead of the individual items.  But it'd put
an end to all the nonsense about "built in" gui, "built in"
replication, "built in" crypto, &c.  What's so "built in" about a
package you have to buy as an extra option (like hot backup in MySQL
or RAC in Oracle) anyway?

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
        --Roger Brinner

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, scott.marlowe wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > > Should we write an open letter response (need to be carefully pitched
> > > though).
> >
> > I've already contacted Sleepycat, via a conversation we were having about
> > OSCON.     Please let me see if that bears fruit before doing anything else.
>
> They seemed like nice folks when I met them a couple years ago, so I'm
> sure they'll straighten things out.
>
> The oddest line in the whole report to me was:
>
> "However, Aberdeen's interviews also show that today's proprietary
> installed bases and ISVs show little interest in replacing existing
> databases with open source ones - leaving open source databases with only
> so many places to expand in..."
>
> Considering how many times we see requests for converting Oracle / MSSQL /
> DB2 databases to Postgresql, I think their people swim in different waters
> than the Postgresql people so.

To be fair here, how many of these are Oracle DBAs and such?  I know where
I worked at for 7 years, when I started, it was exclusively Oracle ...
management had no problems with my implementing things with PostgreSQL,
but talk to the Oracle DBAs and there is a better hope of hell freezing
over then the University ever switching over to an Open Source Database,
regardless of which one ...

Mainly, perceptions even within one organization differ depending on whom
you talk to :(

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Josh Berkus wrote:

>What's really peculiar about this is that I participated in an Aberdeen
study
>specifically on PostgreSQL as a replacement for Oracle.   So the Aberdeen
>folks have *extensive* information about PostgreSQL, its features, and its
>development process.   But apparently the researchers don't share
>information.

I would not put a lot of weight on this report.

Most Aberdeen "white papers" are specific for-hire products, typically
costing in the $10-$20k+ range.  They are far from objective:  the vendor
gets to read the draft, review, and comment.  In this case, I'm sure
Sleepycat was avoiding saying anything bad about MySQL, since they have a
relationship.

This is in sharp contrast to material from outfits like Forrester and
Gartner, which are more objective -- to the extent they can be with vendors
as paying customers.  Companies don't see material until after it's been
published, and (most) analysts pride themselves on being objective.  BUT,
analysts do get most of their info from company pitches:  so, if company A
presents, but company B isn't there to balance things out, there will be a
bias.

-andy

On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 18:00, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:11:38AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> > We get quite a few requests for a GUI on the lists too. Maybe we
> > need to look at providing some pointers from the download page.
>
> I was thinking, lately, of the possibility that what might really be
> desirable to some people are big, honkin' packages of all the bells
> and whistles.  The disadvantage I see is the utter folly of
> downloading all that instead of the individual items.  But it'd put

I don't think that is necessary. People don't see it as an integrated
package as those items simply do not exist within the postgresql.org
realm.

Goto postgresql.org and it takes a fair amount of work to find pgadmin
(downloads -- but you still don't know what it is), GIS, or others.

Contrast to Gnome, which many consider integrated despite being equally
small packages that make individual releases.
- Single FTP Site with all tarballs coinciding with recent release --
they're all individual, but it is a complete set of official packages
- Single place to report a bug
- Single location to find out about releases
- Consolidated release notes for all the most recent release of
sub-components
- Single source repository
- Package system (FreeBSD anyway) has packages like 'gnome2',
'gnome2-lite', 'gnome2-power-tools', 'gnome-fifth-toe' which are empty
packages with plenty of dependencies (those in the know can install
individial components -- those who don't know get a functional desktop
with some things they may not use installed)

PostgreSQL currently looks like a tiny core with many 3rd party addons,
which is true, but with a little elbow grease could be a tiny core with
many 1st party addons.

projects.postgresql.org is a big step in the right direction but more
integration (in particular getting the core into that system) is
important.

Is there anyway I can help get project.postgresql.org running?

--
Rod Taylor <rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca>

Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/signature.asc

* Andrew Payne <andy@payne.org> wrote:

<snip>
> This is in sharp contrast to material from outfits like Forrester and
eh ? Forrester = objective ?
Okay, your posting came on april 2nd, accepted as an april's fool ;-)


cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service

  phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/
  fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     contact@metux.de
  cellphone: +49 174 7066481
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops --
---------------------------------------------------------------------

* Fred Moyer <fred@redhotpenguin.com> wrote:

<snip>
> I find the weekly news to be a great summary of what's going on when
> I'm away from the lists but for those who aren't on the announce list
ACK.
I'm not reading evrything, but always having a short look over it.

> it takes a while for them to get there.  I think posting the weekly
> news to the website front page would be a great way to reach out to
> those channels.
Great Idea :)
If you remind me in about two or three weeks, I'll contribute a small
mailbot, which pulls the posting into a table and a php script for
displaying it.


cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service

  phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/
  fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     contact@metux.de
  cellphone: +49 174 7066481
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops --
---------------------------------------------------------------------

* Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> wrote:

<snip>
> I don't think that is necessary. People don't see it as an integrated
> package as those items simply do not exist within the postgresql.org
> realm.
>
> Goto postgresql.org and it takes a fair amount of work to find pgadmin
> (downloads -- but you still don't know what it is), GIS, or others.

Probably we should additionally offer an large packaged distribution
incl. admin tools and some other stuff. This could be auto-generated
by some shellscripts. Just to make some people happy ;-)

<snip>
> Contrast to Gnome, which many consider integrated despite being equally
> small packages that make individual releases.
> - Single FTP Site with all tarballs coinciding with recent release --
> they're all individual, but it is a complete set of official packages
> - Single place to report a bug
> - Single location to find out about releases
> - Consolidated release notes for all the most recent release of
> sub-components
> - Single source repository
Well, most more complex admin tools / frontends I know are not really
limited to postgresql and so probably like to be own projects.
For example phppgadmin is developed for pgsql, but also usable for
other RDBMS by just adding another DB driver class (already has several
drivers for several pgsql versions).

Since I'm currently working on an own branch of that (i.e. now completely
template based, fixing some session problems, moving away from frames
and jscript dependencies, adding postmaster administration)
and the main developer(s) of the official branch expressed to have no
interest in my work, I'm thinking about completely forking off.
I'm also now talking w/ the developer of ibwebadmin (4 interbase)
about migrating both projects together.

If there're some more people interested in my works, then why not
putting it into postgresql.org ?

> - Package system (FreeBSD anyway) has packages like 'gnome2',
> 'gnome2-lite', 'gnome2-power-tools', 'gnome-fifth-toe' which are empty
> packages with plenty of dependencies (those in the know can install
> individial components -- those who don't know get a functional desktop
> with some things they may not use installed)
ah, packaging is a hard job. I dont think it really belongs to the
main project itself. But the main project of course should supply enough
(machine reable) information for the packagers, i.e. some kind of markup
describing which modules a package contains of, which variants/features
can be built and what depencies this implies.

I'm currently working on an almost 100% automated buildfarm, which shall
be fed with such an markup.

cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service

  phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/
  fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     contact@metux.de
  cellphone: +49 174 7066481
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops --
---------------------------------------------------------------------