Thread: Release, 3rd draft
Folks, Please take a look at the current draft, (both in docs and in CVS). I've made a few changes: 1) Added a summary paragraph per Lance's suggestion. I merged it with the 1st paragraph and re-wrote the 2nd so that it flows. 2) Lance, I still need a title for you. What are you, R&D director? What? 3) I replaced the "these are the features" sentences with sub-headers. Those sentences seemed redundant with the summary para. 4) After some reflection, I cut the stuff with OSDL. It's too much. We mention 8-way and 16-way machines up above. If we really want the OSDL stuff, then I'd say cut Merlin's quote and get one from Mark Wong. Comments? -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 12:01:40PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > Please take a look at the current draft, (both in docs and in CVS). I've > made a few changes: > > 1) Added a summary paragraph per Lance's suggestion. I merged it with the > 1st paragraph and re-wrote the 2nd so that it flows. > > 2) Lance, I still need a title for you. What are you, R&D director? What? His title is Director of Products. > 3) I replaced the "these are the features" sentences with sub-headers. > Those sentences seemed redundant with the summary para. > > 4) After some reflection, I cut the stuff with OSDL. It's too much. We > mention 8-way and 16-way machines up above. If we really want the OSDL > stuff, then I'd say cut Merlin's quote and get one from Mark Wong. > > Comments? > > -- > --Josh > > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
1st para: If we're going to go with 2pc, it should be 2PC IMO. But I think it would be better to spell it out (two-phase ocmmit). New Advanced Features, para 2: s#INOUT#IN/OUT# The table partitioning section is a bit misleading in that it doesn't actually help with large tables, it just makes partitioning a bit more effective. On the BSD/GPL horse, what about... PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which unlike GPL licensed software, allows use and distribution without fees for both commercial and non-commercial applications. On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 12:01:40PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > Please take a look at the current draft, (both in docs and in CVS). I've > made a few changes: > > 1) Added a summary paragraph per Lance's suggestion. I merged it with the > 1st paragraph and re-wrote the 2nd so that it flows. > > 2) Lance, I still need a title for you. What are you, R&D director? What? > > 3) I replaced the "these are the features" sentences with sub-headers. > Those sentences seemed redundant with the summary para. > > 4) After some reflection, I cut the stuff with OSDL. It's too much. We > mention 8-way and 16-way machines up above. If we really want the OSDL > stuff, then I'd say cut Merlin's quote and get one from Mark Wong. > > Comments? > > -- > --Josh > > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Folks, 5) I've just checked our download stats. So far, we've only had about 11,000 beta downloads. If there's no accelleration, that could mean about 20,000 downloads at the time of release. So, question, is 20,000 beta downloads impressive at all? Or does this make it a bad quote? -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
I'd try and focus more on # of beta testers, not # of downloads ... how many "unique visitors" have downloaded the beta copy? "Over 1000 beta testers ..." is more impressive, I think, then "20k downloads of the beta" ... On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > 5) I've just checked our download stats. So far, we've only had about > 11,000 beta downloads. If there's no accelleration, that could mean > about 20,000 downloads at the time of release. So, question, is 20,000 > beta downloads impressive at all? Or does this make it a bad quote? > > -- > --Josh > > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Jim, > If we're going to go with 2pc, it should be 2PC IMO. But I think it > would be better to spell it out (two-phase ocmmit). Oh, right, missed that. > New Advanced Features, para 2: > s#INOUT#IN/OUT# Really? I thought the technical term for the 3 types of params were IN, OUT, and INOUT. > The table partitioning section is a bit misleading in that it doesn't > actually help with large tables, it just makes partitioning a bit more > effective. Suggested replacement language? > On the BSD/GPL horse, what about... > > PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which unlike GPL licensed > software, allows use and distribution without fees for both commercial > and non-commercial applications. I am *NOT* picking a fight with the FSF. Also, many people (myself included) do not agree with MySQL's draconian interpretation of the GPL. This would get us headlines, all right, but the wrong kind. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
How does it compare to 8.0? On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 12:42:03PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > 5) I've just checked our download stats. So far, we've only had about > 11,000 beta downloads. If there's no accelleration, that could mean > about 20,000 downloads at the time of release. So, question, is 20,000 > beta downloads impressive at all? Or does this make it a bad quote? > > -- > --Josh > > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim, Marc, > How does it compare to 8.0? Badly. 8.0 had a 6-month beta and was our first Windows version, so there were over 200,000 downloads of the beta ... 80% Windows. > I'd try and focus more on # of beta testers, not # of downloads ... how > many "unique visitors" have downloaded the beta copy? "Over 1000 beta > testers ..." is more impressive, I think, then "20k downloads of the > beta" ... Unfortunately, we don't seem to be collecting that information ... so I have no way of discerning "unique visitors". --Josh -- __Aglio Database Solutions_______________ Josh Berkus Consultant josh@agliodbs.com www.agliodbs.com Ph: 415-752-2500 Fax: 415-752-2387 2166 Hayes Suite 200 San Francisco, CA
Whatever number is chosen, note that the MySQL people quoted 2 million downloads of their beta (ref: http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html). Granted they've been in beta significantly longer, and have had more beta releases than us, but for someone comparing the press releases... Might definitly be good to pick different wording so it can't be directly compared. //Magnus > I'd try and focus more on # of beta testers, not # of > downloads ... how many "unique visitors" have downloaded the > beta copy? "Over 1000 beta testers ..." is more impressive, > I think, then "20k downloads of the beta" > ... > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > 5) I've just checked our download stats. So far, we've > only had about > > 11,000 beta downloads. If there's no accelleration, that > could mean > > about 20,000 downloads at the time of release. So, > question, is 20,000 > > beta downloads impressive at all? Or does this make it a bad quote? > > > > -- > > --Josh > > > > Josh Berkus > > Aglio Database Solutions > > San Francisco > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy > ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org > so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
That's not a very impressive number. I'm concerned that it will compare poorly against MySQL. That fact that MySQL 5
stinksand has needed such a long beta is beside the point.
We could just delete the "Given that 8.1 has already had x downloads of the beta" statement. We could also appeal to
anindustry trend instead of an 8.1 beta metric. Something like "Given the acceleration around all things open source,
I'mexpecting..."
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:42 PM
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Cc: Jim Nasby
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Release, 3rd draft
Folks,
5) I've just checked our download stats. So far, we've only had about
11,000 beta downloads. If there's no accelleration, that could mean
about 20,000 downloads at the time of release. So, question, is 20,000
beta downloads impressive at all? Or does this make it a bad quote?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 12:45:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim, > > > If we're going to go with 2pc, it should be 2PC IMO. But I think it > > would be better to spell it out (two-phase ocmmit). > > Oh, right, missed that. > > > New Advanced Features, para 2: > > s#INOUT#IN/OUT# > > Really? I thought the technical term for the 3 types of params were IN, > OUT, and INOUT. Well, it's inconsistent with the usage in the first paragraph (IN/OUT). And usually when I see a reference to the *concept* (which is what I'd say the PR is), it's usually called IN/OUT as an umbrella term for IN/OUT/INOUT. > > The table partitioning section is a bit misleading in that it doesn't > > actually help with large tables, it just makes partitioning a bit more > > effective. > > Suggested replacement language? Got a meeting so this is just a quick hack... ...the query planner is now able to entirely avoid scanning tables that it knows will not have any data to satisfy a query. This feature, called Constraint Elimination, utilizes constraints placed on tables to decide if they have any valid data for a given query. This is the foundation upon which table partitioning can be built. > > On the BSD/GPL horse, what about... > > > > PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which unlike GPL licensed > > software, allows use and distribution without fees for both commercial > > and non-commercial applications. > > I am *NOT* picking a fight with the FSF. Also, many people (myself > included) do not agree with MySQL's draconian interpretation of the GPL. > > This would get us headlines, all right, but the wrong kind. Is there such a thing? :) In any case, I definately think we need to raise awareness of the licensing issue. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
> >>On the BSD/GPL horse, what about... >> >>PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which unlike GPL licensed >>software, allows use and distribution without fees for both commercial >>and non-commercial applications. > > > I am *NOT* picking a fight with the FSF. Also, many people (myself > included) do not agree with MySQL's draconian interpretation of the GPL. > > This would get us headlines, all right, but the wrong kind. I agree with that as well. The GPL does not prohibit commercial distribution. It does prohibity proprietary/closed source distribution. Commercial: Of or relationg to commerce. The GPL does not prevent that in any way. I have actually had our attorney review the MySQL terms, and he says there a crock. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Whatever number is chosen, note that the MySQL people quoted 2 million > downloads of their beta (ref: > http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_959.html). Granted > they've been in beta significantly longer, and have had more beta > releases than us, but for someone comparing the press releases... Might > definitly be good to pick different wording so it can't be directly > compared. > > //Magnus I would say ignore the number of beta downloads and focus on the number of community members assisting. A good example would be the Distributed build and testing environment that we use (pgBuildFarm). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Jim, Josh, Lance: > I would say ignore the number of beta downloads and focus on the number > of community members assisting. What's the number of unique posters to pgsql-bugs and pgsql-hackers since beta started? Can anyone get me that number? > Well, it's inconsistent with the usage in the first paragraph (IN/OUT). > And usually when I see a reference to the *concept* (which is what I'd > say the PR is), it's usually called IN/OUT as an umbrella term for > IN/OUT/INOUT. OK. > ...the query planner is now able to entirely avoid scanning tables that > it knows will not have any data to satisfy a query. This feature, called > Constraint Elimination, utilizes constraints placed on tables to decide > if they have any valid data for a given query. This is the foundation > upon which table partitioning can be built. Too technical. And we don't want to imply that we *don't* have table partitioning; we have it as much as MySQL or Ingres has. Basically this blurb is a careful balance between saying "We have Table Partitioning!" and overhyping the feature. > In any case, I definately think we need to raise awareness of the > licensing issue. Can you draft a short (4-6 line) paragraph for inclusion in the web-based presskit (NOT the release)? WITHOUT saying anything bad about the GPL? --Josh -- __Aglio Database Solutions_______________ Josh Berkus Consultant josh@agliodbs.com www.agliodbs.com Ph: 415-752-2500 Fax: 415-752-2387 2166 Hayes Suite 200 San Francisco, CA
The press release for 8.1 *not* the time to argue BSD vs. GPL. We have two good pieces of news to report (adoption and features). Let the reporters focus on those two items. -----Original Message----- From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:10 PM To: josh@agliodbs.com Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org; Jim Nasby Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Release, 3rd draft > >>On the BSD/GPL horse, what about... >> >>PostgreSQL is distributed under a BSD license, which unlike GPL licensed >>software, allows use and distribution without fees for both commercial >>and non-commercial applications. > > > I am *NOT* picking a fight with the FSF. Also, many people (myself > included) do not agree with MySQL's draconian interpretation of the GPL. > > This would get us headlines, all right, but the wrong kind. I agree with that as well. The GPL does not prohibit commercial distribution. It does prohibity proprietary/closed source distribution. Commercial: Of or relationg to commerce. The GPL does not prevent that in any way. I have actually had our attorney review the MySQL terms, and he says there a crock. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim, Josh, Lance: > > >>I would say ignore the number of beta downloads and focus on the number >>of community members assisting. > > > What's the number of unique posters to pgsql-bugs and pgsql-hackers since > beta started? Can anyone get me that number? > In Sept-05 there were: 1466 posts to hackers I have no idea how many of those were unique posters. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 01:13:37PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Can you draft a short (4-6 line) paragraph for inclusion in the web-based > presskit (NOT the release)? WITHOUT saying anything bad about the GPL? How about... Many open-source licenses place serious restrictions on commercial use of software. These licenses are often "viral" in nature, requiring that any software built using the licensed software must use the same open-source license. This means any product built using that open-source software must be made open-source itself. PostgreSQL uses the <a href='..'>BSD license</a>, which only requires that the licensed source code maintain it's copywrite and licensing information. Other than that, you are free to do whatever you want with the code, including re-distribute it commercially. Other ideas welcome. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 01:51:31PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >Jim, Josh, Lance: > > > > > >>I would say ignore the number of beta downloads and focus on the number > >>of community members assisting. > > > > > >What's the number of unique posters to pgsql-bugs and pgsql-hackers since > >beta started? Can anyone get me that number? > > > > In Sept-05 there were: 1466 posts to hackers I have no idea how many of > those were unique posters. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake I think others are right; we're not going to be able to make the beta numbers look good and should just drop the mention of it. TBH, I'm actually wondering if we'll hit the same numbers we did with 8.0. Windows support was a huge feature, and I suspect it drove a lot of those downloads are windows... Hmm, looking at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-09/msg00057.php, there were 700,000 windows downloads out of 1M, meaning 300k non-windows downloads, which is exactly the number we had for 'the previous version' (whichever version that is). So based on that, *all* our growth has been on windows. Are we really 2x more popular on windows than on *nix? I'm really thinking we need a trivially easy way for users to register that they've started using version xyz of the database. I think we're barely better than making WAGs here. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim, > Many open-source licenses place serious restrictions on commercial use > of software. These licenses are often "viral" in nature, requiring that > any software built using the licensed software must use the same > open-source license. This means any product built using that open-source > software must be made open-source itself. PostgreSQL uses the <a > href='..'>BSD license</a>, which only requires that the licensed source > code maintain it's copywrite and licensing information. Other than > that, you are free to do whatever you want with the code, including > re-distribute it commercially. Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license while not criticizing other people's. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license while not > criticizing other people's. PostgreSQL uses the <a> href='..'>BSD license</a>, which only requires that the licensed source code maintain it's copyright and licensing information. This provides for a very flexible and business friendly licensing model. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:18:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Jim, > > > Many open-source licenses place serious restrictions on commercial use > > of software. These licenses are often "viral" in nature, requiring that > > any software built using the licensed software must use the same > > open-source license. This means any product built using that open-source > > software must be made open-source itself. PostgreSQL uses the <a > > href='..'>BSD license</a>, which only requires that the licensed source > > code maintain it's copywrite and licensing information. Other than > > that, you are free to do whatever you want with the code, including > > re-distribute it commercially. > > Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license while not > criticizing other people's. One issue is that many people seem to equate the two, so I think it's going to be difficult/impossible to not have some negative verbage about other licenses. But, I'll give it a shot... PostgreSQL uses the BSD license. Unlike many other open-source licenses, code licensed under a BSD license is completely free for any use, commercial or not. The only requirement is that the licensed code must always maintain it's license and copyright information. Maybe also a sentence about checking with legal before deciding on a product (since that will always be a win for us), but I can't think of a way to word it. The idea is to get people to actually look into both licenses instead of believing the word on the street. It's tempting to just say "compare our 1/4 page license to the multi-page licenses you'll find elsewhere". :P -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
> > > > Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license while not > > criticizing other people's. > > One issue is that many people seem to equate the two, so I think it's > going to be difficult/impossible to not have some negative verbage about > other licenses. But, I'll give it a shot... See my last post. It isn't that hard. You just completely ignore the fact that the GPL even exists or any other license for that matter. There is only one open source license for this PR and that is the BSD license. We don't even have to mention the others. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > - > Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support > Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting > Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/ >
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > > Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license while not > > > criticizing other people's. > > > > One issue is that many people seem to equate the two, so I think it's > > going to be difficult/impossible to not have some negative verbage about > > other licenses. But, I'll give it a shot... > > See my last post. It isn't that hard. You just completely ignore the > fact that the GPL even exists or any other license for that matter. > > There is only one open source license for this PR and that is the BSD > license. We don't even have to mention the others. Well, the original request was for something to go on the website and specifically not in the PR. As such, the effect I want is for people to actively investigate what the different licensing schemes mean, and to ensure people understand that we're very different from the GPL (and understand what restrictions other licenses have for those not aware). That's why I think it's important to mention other licenses. I do think your blurb would be great for the PR though. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On Monday 03 October 2005 17:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license
> > > while not criticizing other people's.
> >
> > One issue is that many people seem to equate the two, so I think it's
> > going to be difficult/impossible to not have some negative verbage about
> > other licenses. But, I'll give it a shot...
>
> See my last post. It isn't that hard. You just completely ignore the
> fact that the GPL even exists or any other license for that matter.
>
> There is only one open source license for this PR and that is the BSD
> license. We don't even have to mention the others.
>
Agreed. I happen to use a lot of GPL software, and don't feel the need to
beat up on it.
"PostgreSQL is licensed under the business friendly BSD license, meaning it is
safe for use in both commercial products and open source projects, without
the worry of additional license fees."
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim, Josh, Lance:
>
>> I would say ignore the number of beta downloads and focus on the number
>> of community members assisting.
>
> What's the number of unique posters to pgsql-bugs and pgsql-hackers since
> beta started? Can anyone get me that number?
Very approx:
# grep ^From: pgsql-bugs.2005[01][890] | awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort -u | wc -l
218
# grep ^From: pgsql-hackers.2005[01][890] | awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort -u | wc -l
272
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Folks,
> # grep ^From: pgsql-bugs.2005[01][890] | awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort -u
> | wc -l 218
> # grep ^From: pgsql-hackers.2005[01][890] | awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort
> -u | wc -l 272
Well, that's no good either. Do we give up on the whole download counts
thing, or state the numbers in some other way (i.e. "15,000 downloads per
month")?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
>> # grep ^From: pgsql-bugs.2005[01][890] | awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort -u
>> | wc -l 218
>> # grep ^From: pgsql-hackers.2005[01][890] | awk -F: '{print $3}' | sort
>> -u | wc -l 272
>
> Well, that's no good either. Do we give up on the whole download counts
> thing, or state the numbers in some other way (i.e. "15,000 downloads per
> month")?
Nothing we are going to come up with is going to be as "impressive" as
MySQLs numbers, if that is what you are striving for here :( Personally,
I don't think that, in light of the fact that their 5.0 has been beta for
*eons* now, that their numbers are that impressive, but one has to put it
into perspective to arrive at that (5.0 has been beta for *how* long now,
over a year?) ...
Based on them being at version 5.0.13, according to FreeBSD ports, and I
believe, still beta ... that is 13 beta releases *so far* to our usual,
what, 4?
Didn't someone mention something like 2 000 000 beta downloads for 5.0?
If so, that an avg of 153k per beta ... with that many testers, is their
code *that* bad that they can't find all the bugs quicker then that?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > Didn't someone mention something like 2 000 000 beta downloads for 5.0? > If so, that an avg of 153k per beta ... with that many testers, is their > code *that* bad that they can't find all the bugs quicker then that? I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There isn't any arguing that. Just because it is more popular doesn't make it better and if we try to compete on their metrics we are going to loose. We have to compete on our metrics... PostgreSQL is the most advanced Open Source Database with enterprise features that serious database developers demand, such as two-phase commit, point in time recovery and tablespaces. Other popular (have to have this caveat because of Ingres) Open Source Databases don't even come close. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Didn't someone mention something like 2 000 000 beta downloads for 5.0? If > so, that an avg of 153k per beta ... with that many testers, is their code > *that* bad that they can't find all the bugs quicker then that? Their release model is quite different, there is no such thing as a feature freeze until about beta 10. Until about beta 5 most features that should be in the final product are still missing. After beta, there are gamma relases, which rather matche our betas. MySQL beta software is so successul because those are the only releases having some of the required features. And using the current stable version would mean that your software will be completly incompatible to the next release (see e.g. their changes to the TIMESTAMP type from 4 to 4.1). ;-)) Although there is *some* truth in all this rant. Best Regards, Michael Paesold
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> >> Didn't someone mention something like 2 000 000 beta downloads for 5.0? >> If so, that an avg of 153k per beta ... with that many testers, is their >> code *that* bad that they can't find all the bugs quicker then that? > > I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It > doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There > isn't any arguing that. > > Just because it is more popular doesn't make it better and if we try to > compete on their metrics we are going to loose. Sorry, hadn't worded my response to Josh particularly well ... I wasn't suggesting that we should be doing such a comparison, *especially* not in our press release :) Was just trying to point out that # of beta downloads, or testers, really doesn't mean anything, especially if there are so many bugs that it takes >1year to get a product released ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 08:41:53PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > >Didn't someone mention something like 2 000 000 beta downloads for 5.0? If > >so, that an avg of 153k per beta ... with that many testers, is their code > >*that* bad that they can't find all the bugs quicker then that? > > Their release model is quite different, there is no such thing as a feature > freeze until about beta 10. Until about beta 5 most features that should be > in the final product are still missing. After beta, there are gamma > relases, which rather matche our betas. Hmm, maybe we should include anonymous CVS checkouts and updates then. I could give the number of CVS checkouts I did to my private CVSup mirror; if all CVSup users do the same, we could come up with a reasonably comparable number to MySQL beta downloads. Or not. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org "Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que la verdad absoluta no existe... El problema es que la mentira sí existe y tu estás mintiendo" (G. Lama)
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:46:05AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > Didn't someone mention something like 2 000 000 beta downloads for 5.0? > > If so, that an avg of 153k per beta ... with that many testers, is their > > code *that* bad that they can't find all the bugs quicker then that? > > I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It > doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There > isn't any arguing that. > > Just because it is more popular doesn't make it better and if we try to > compete on their metrics we are going to loose. > > We have to compete on our metrics... > > PostgreSQL is the most advanced Open Source Database with enterprise > features that serious database developers demand, such as two-phase > commit, point in time recovery and tablespaces. Other popular (have to > have this caveat because of Ingres) Open Source Databases don't even > come close. You forgot to mention that we read and write to disk, instead of /dev/random and /dev/null. ;P -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Folks, > > I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It > > doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There > > isn't any arguing that. Right. However, this removes the whole thrust of the Lance quote. Does anyone have a suggestion on what to do with the PR instead? --Josh -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
I don't agree. We have a great thing to say about 8.0 adoption. We've crossed the million downloads barrier and we needto ring the bell. A million is an absolute number that doesn't need to be compared. Where we are on thin ice is the 8.1 beta. We shouldn't compare our 20k against their 2000k. If we go with the industrytrend suggestion I made yesterday (or something equivalent), we'll be fine. -----Original Message----- From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:01 PM To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Cc: Jim Nasby; Joshua D. Drake; Marc G. Fournier Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Release, 3rd draft Folks, > > I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It > > doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There > > isn't any arguing that. Right. However, this removes the whole thrust of the Lance quote. Does anyone have a suggestion on what to do with the PR instead? --Josh -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > > > I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It > > > doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There > > > isn't any arguing that. > > Right. However, this removes the whole thrust of the Lance quote. Does > anyone have a suggestion on what to do with the PR instead? Well, it only removes part of it; that about our current beta. The last version clearly showed a trend of increased downloads over the version before that. Though I agree that the quote loses some of it's effect. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim C. Nasby wrote: >On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >>Folks, >> >> >> >>>>I don't think we should compare ourselves to the MySQL metric. It >>>>doesn't do us any good. The reality is, MySQL is more popular. There >>>>isn't any arguing that. >>>> >>>> >>Right. However, this removes the whole thrust of the Lance quote. Does >>anyone have a suggestion on what to do with the PR instead? >> >> > >Well, it only removes part of it; that about our current beta. The last >version clearly showed a trend of increased downloads over the version >before that. Though I agree that the quote loses some of it's effect. > > Why not mix it in with the previous numbers from 8.x... The 8 series continues it incredible growth as we release 8.1 with over X number of downloads etc.... -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Lance, > Where we are on thin ice is the 8.1 beta. We shouldn't compare our 20k > against their 2000k. If we go with the industry trend suggestion I made > yesterday (or something equivalent), we'll be fine. Well, since it's your quote, want to say something? Also, we could just not mention the number ... although then reporters are liable to ask. --Josh -- __Aglio Database Solutions_______________ Josh Berkus Consultant josh@agliodbs.com www.agliodbs.com Ph: 415-752-2500 Fax: 415-752-2387 2166 Hayes Suite 200 San Francisco, CA
"The project is clearly accelerating in the minds of database users," said Lance Obermeyer, Director of Products at PervasiveSoftware, one of PostgreSQL's corporate sponsors. "Given the growing interest in open source infrastructure software, we're expecting PostgreSQL to pick up even more steam." -----Original Message----- From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:30 PM To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Cc: Lance Obermeyer; Jim Nasby; Joshua D. Drake; Marc G. Fournier Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Release, 3rd draft Lance, > Where we are on thin ice is the 8.1 beta. We shouldn't compare our 20k > against their 2000k. If we go with the industry trend suggestion I made > yesterday (or something equivalent), we'll be fine. Well, since it's your quote, want to say something? Also, we could just not mention the number ... although then reporters are liable to ask. --Josh -- __Aglio Database Solutions_______________ Josh Berkus Consultant josh@agliodbs.com www.agliodbs.com Ph: 415-752-2500 Fax: 415-752-2387 2166 Hayes Suite 200 San Francisco, CA ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
I'm wondering about the second paragraph, which is These features will continue the adoption trend established by PostgreSQL 8.0. Designed, built and tested by a large and thriving community and backed by a growing number of corporate sponsors and support companies, PostgreSQL enjoys growing user interest. Version 8.0 has been downloaded 1 million times in its first 7 months. This compares with about 300,000 over a similar period for the prior release. ISTM that the second sentence in the paragraph is misplaced. It is certainly true that PG is the work of a community, andthat should be said. However, it is stuck in between two sentences about adoption. Perhaps the sentence should be movedinto the first paragraph?
Lance, > ISTM that the second sentence in the paragraph is misplaced. It is certainly true that PG is the work of a community,and that should be said. However, it is stuck in between two sentences about adoption. Perhaps the sentence shouldbe moved into the first paragraph? I'll give it a try, see how it looks. Thanks for new quote. --Josh
Josh, > Would it make sense to have a couple of the community popular make > quotes? I am not trying to take away from Pervasive here, just thinking > that if we had Green Plum, Pervasive and Command Prompt all mentioning > a 1-2 sentence blurb about their particular markets with PostgreSQL it > may lend weight. This is a press release, not a feature story. I'm working on somewhere on the PressKit page to put a list of support companies. --Josh
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:20 -0500, Lance Obermeyer wrote: > "The project is clearly accelerating in the minds of database users," said Lance Obermeyer, Director of Products at PervasiveSoftware, one of PostgreSQL's corporate sponsors. > "Given the growing interest in open source infrastructure software, we're expecting PostgreSQL to pick up even more steam." > Would it make sense to have a couple of the community popular make quotes? I am not trying to take away from Pervasive here, just thinking that if we had Green Plum, Pervasive and Command Prompt all mentioning a 1-2 sentence blurb about their particular markets with PostgreSQL it may lend weight. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/