Thread: EDB taking over?

I wonder how many non-EDB contributors have seen the One-Click
installer; I never used it until 8.4. I was quite irritated how
prominently the EnterpriseDB lettering is placed on the installer; apart
from a tiny "Packaged by" the graphics is a pgsql Elephant with a big
"EnterpriseDB(tm)" on top, with no PostgreSQL lettering around. From the
installer's appearance, you could get the impression EDB is the company
behind postgres.

I've seen some EDB impact on pgadmin's design principles a while ago;
pgadmin could be considered as the face of pgsql (since most win32
first-time users probably will have the first contact to pgsql via
pgadmin), so while this message's subject is certainly an exaggeration,
I see tendencies for EnterpriseDB to use pgsql infrastructure as
marketing vehicle more and more.


Regards,
Andreas

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> I wonder how many non-EDB contributors have seen the One-Click
> installer; I never used it until 8.4. I was quite irritated how
> prominently the EnterpriseDB lettering is placed on the installer; apart
> from a tiny "Packaged by" the graphics is a pgsql Elephant with a big
> "EnterpriseDB(tm)" on top, with no PostgreSQL lettering around. From the
> installer's appearance, you could get the impression EDB is the company
> behind postgres.

EDB *is* the company behind those installers. We have a number of
people working on them, between two and three working full time in the
lead up to 8.4 on testing and development.

The logo is a large elephant logo, which is probably 3 times the size
of the 'packaged by edb' logo. It is shown on 2 of the 9 installer
screens.

The splash screen shown by the installer at startup is based on the
blue gradient website banner, containing the elephant, and 'world's
most advanced open source database' tagline, with no EDB logo or text
etc. at all.

> I've seen some EDB impact on pgadmin's design principles a while ago;
> pgadmin could be considered as the face of pgsql (since most win32
> first-time users probably will have the first contact to pgsql via
> pgadmin), so while this message's subject is certainly an exaggeration,
> I see tendencies for EnterpriseDB to use pgsql infrastructure as
> marketing vehicle more and more.

You wrote the original EDB support in pgAdmin, so I'm not sure you can
complain too hard about that :-p. I will note that in 1.10, pgAdmin
has enhanced support for Greenplum, and unless you're running either
Postgres Plus AS or Greenplum database (where the database specific
features will become visible), pretty much wherever you see EDB in
pgAdmin, you will also see Greenplum.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
>
>
> EDB *is* the company behind those installers. We have a number of
> people working on them, between two and three working full time in the
> lead up to 8.4 on testing and development.
>

EDB appears as company behind the whole package, not just the installer.
Also please note that this message was primarily addressed to non-EDB
contributors, to check if they might feel the same.

> The splash screen shown by the installer at startup is based on the
> blue gradient website banner, containing the elephant, and 'world's
> most advanced open source database' tagline, with no EDB logo or text
> etc. at all.
>
Admittedly, but quite tiny, and fading fast. I recognized what can be
read there, but first-time users probably won't.

>
>> I've seen some EDB impact on pgadmin's design principles a while ago;
>> pgadmin could be considered as the face of pgsql (since most win32
>> first-time users probably will have the first contact to pgsql via
>> pgadmin), so while this message's subject is certainly an exaggeration,
>> I see tendencies for EnterpriseDB to use pgsql infrastructure as
>> marketing vehicle more and more.
>>
>
> You wrote the original EDB support in pgAdmin, so I'm not sure you can
> complain too hard about that :-p. I will note that in 1.10, pgAdmin
> has enhanced support for Greenplum, and unless you're running either
> Postgres Plus AS or Greenplum database (where the database specific
> features will become visible), pretty much wherever you see EDB in
> pgAdmin, you will also see Greenplum.
>

I've mentioned *design principles*, not systems or specific features
supported (actually, the opposite: std features suppressed). I've
noticed a shift that reminded me of the very first EDB pgadmin
derivative. However, I wasn't going to discuss pgadmin.

Regards,
Andreas

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:

> EDB appears as company behind the whole package, not just the installer.

That's precisely why it says 'Packaged by' prominently in the graphic,
and why in places like the Add/Remove Programs entry, and executable
resources, it says 'PostgreSQL Global Development Group' and 'The
PostgreSQL DBMS, version 8.4, packaged by EnterpriseDB'.

> Also please note that this message was primarily addressed to non-EDB
> contributors, to check if they might feel the same.

Sure, go for it. I'm not going to ignore any misleading claims that
are made though.

> I've mentioned *design principles*, not systems or specific features
> supported (actually, the opposite: std features suppressed). I've
> noticed a shift that reminded me of the very first EDB pgadmin
> derivative.

I've never used the original EDB derivative (except maybe for 5
minutes, many years ago), and noone in EDB has any say over what I put
in pgAdmin, other than to make suggestions. Any design principles that
may have changed are therefore entirely down to me (and I think I
earned the right to steer that project a little :-p )..

> However, I wasn't going to discuss pgadmin.

<shrug> you brought it up.

:-)

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 10:46 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> > I wonder how many non-EDB contributors have seen the One-Click
> > installer; I never used it until 8.4. I was quite irritated how
> > prominently the EnterpriseDB lettering is placed on the installer; apart
> > from a tiny "Packaged by" the graphics is a pgsql Elephant with a big
> > "EnterpriseDB(tm)" on top, with no PostgreSQL lettering around. From the
> > installer's appearance, you could get the impression EDB is the company
> > behind postgres.
>
> EDB *is* the company behind those installers. We have a number of
> people working on them, between two and three working full time in the
> lead up to 8.4 on testing and development.

I think Andreas' point is well made. I disagree with any company getting
sole mention on such prominent outputs from the project. The reason for
my disagreement is that this is a change to many years of working
practice by the project.

If there is a relationship between time committed to the project and
amount of visibility on the project's output then many many others are
missing from the credit list. It's clearly advertising space and that is
wrong, at least without payment. If you dislike the moral tone, then I
would say it is of no long term benefit to the project for a single
company to appear to be running the project. If we are "trustees of the
code", how does this help the long term viability of the project? How
does it help get other companies interested in contributing development
resources? I thought the argument was that no single company is behind
PostgreSQL. If we say that, we should try to make sure its true.

We should either
i) remove it
ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
iii) have a credits or sponsors list

If the argument is that this is EDB's installer and they can do what
they like, then I want to know at what point the project's installer
became EDB's installer. When did we discuss that the project no longer
has an installer and when did we ask for volunteers to help maintain it,
because EDB will not release its staff to do so without strings
attached? (Surely "ownership" of such things is exactly why open source
was born in the first place).

I've worked lots on the Write Ahead Log internals, but the pg_xlog
directory isn't called pg_xlog_2ndQuadrant. Such an idea ought to be
ridiculous, and the same for installer(s). Probably it ought to say Red
Hat or Tom Lane in very big letters, if anything. Perhaps error messages
ought to occasionally have a HINT saying, "error messages managed by
Peter and translated by Alvaro".

Jokes aside, we stopped advertising on the web sites some time ago. Why
was that? Why don't we have advertising on the docs and the home page
anymore? Why did we stop it there but allow it elsewhere?

I don't think many people will reply, especially when they have to
complain publicly on-list to core team members. It would be interesting
to hold a secret ballot to see who will show their hand then. Can we
hold a survey on whether people think it is wrong to allow any single
company to put its name on works produced by a group project?

Please don't mention that everyone thinks I hate EDB. I'm tired of that
being rolled out every time this kind of thing comes up. Don't keep
pushing the marketing angles and everybody will just say thanks very
much for the contributions, just as they do for many other companies.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Simon Riggs wrote:

> We should either
> i) remove it
> ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
> iii) have a credits or sponsors list

First, I agree with many points of this thread, but I do want to point out
that like *alot* of companies out there (CMD, EnterpriseDB, Redhat), they
have already sunk a huge amount of money into personnel that are working
directly on the code ...

The OneClick Installer is one of EDB's most *visible* contribution ...
there is nothing stopping someone else with duplicating that effort, but I
doubt that will happen ...

As Dave mentions, EDB employs *several* ppl that work on that installer,
which is not small contribution in terms of both man hours *and* monetary
value ...

We have several places on the web site were we acknowledge other
contributions ... if anything is missing from the installer (and I don't
know that it is), it would be some sort of link *to* the list of Project
Contributors in a prominent way .. but as the installer itself is their
contribution, "charging for advertising space" on it doesn't quite seem
reasonable, unless, of course, EDB wanted to charge for the advertising
space to offset the budget they put into developing and maintaining it?



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

On Tuesday 07 July 2009 21:38:06 Simon Riggs wrote:
> We should either
> i) remove it
> ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
> iii) have a credits or sponsors list

While I have occasionally spoken up about this, I'm not sure how to formulate
a fair set of rules that can apply to everyone.

The page in question is this: <http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux>.  We
do promote an Ubuntu package there, for example.  And even though Ubuntu
installers are not typically graphical, I don't think anyone would really
notice or complain if these packages printed out a notice, "Ubuntu packages
made by Canonical".

And then how is this different from "One-Click Installer made by
EnterpriseDB"?

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 21:38:06 Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> We should either
>> i) remove it
>> ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
>> iii) have a credits or sponsors list
>>
>
> While I have occasionally spoken up about this, I'm not sure how to formulate
> a fair set of rules that can apply to everyone.
>
> The page in question is this: <http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux>.  We
> do promote an Ubuntu package there, for example.  And even though Ubuntu
> installers are not typically graphical, I don't think anyone would really
> notice or complain if these packages printed out a notice, "Ubuntu packages
> made by Canonical".
>
> And then how is this different from "One-Click Installer made by
> EnterpriseDB"?
>
It's certainly a question how dominantly "Installer provided by XXX" is
placed. I'd be perfectly ok with it if the lettering was a lot more
discreet, and not combined with the official PostgreSQL logo in a
misleading way. Methinks the installer should be used as advertising
space for PostgreSQL purposes only and not be sold, to avoid any such
issues.

But there's also the aspect that the postgres download page for Windows,
Linux and MacOSX will redirect to an EDB page, which really was the
first thing that irritated me (forgot to mention). Why is that so, why
not a postgres page? Do we want/need  EDB to officially host postgres
stuff, esp with PostgreSQL listed as one of EDB's featured products?


Regards,
Andreas

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 09:32 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 21:38:06 Simon Riggs wrote:
> > We should either
> > i) remove it
> > ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
> > iii) have a credits or sponsors list
>
> While I have occasionally spoken up about this, I'm not sure how to formulate
> a fair set of rules that can apply to everyone.

The main thing for me is that we should have an objective and
transparent process by which these things are decided. We guard the code
with one or two levels of review; we don't need or want too strict a set
of rules, but we do have judges. In the case under discussion there
seems to have been no public discussion on whether an installer would be
issued by PostgreSQL project for this release and there is a clear
conflict of interest for those people responsible.

Let me be very clear that I hold Dave in the highest esteem and make no
personal accusation here. Indeed, I feel we should protect people from
accusations of conflict of interest by removing that possibility.

> The page in question is this: <http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux>.  We
> do promote an Ubuntu package there, for example.  And even though Ubuntu
> installers are not typically graphical, I don't think anyone would really
> notice or complain if these packages printed out a notice, "Ubuntu packages
> made by Canonical".
>
> And then how is this different from "One-Click Installer made by
> EnterpriseDB"?

I think the page in question is
http://www.postgresql.org/download/windows

There is *no* PostgreSQL.org installer for Windows in 8.4, just a link
to an external company's web site.

That is not acceptable, in a project where many volunteers have just
spent much time telling people this across the globe:
"Q: What's the relationship between the PostgreSQL Project,
EnterpriseDB, PostgreSQL Inc., CommandPrompt, SRA, Greenplum, Sun
Microsystems and others?
A: The PostgreSQL project enjoys the support of multiple companies who
sell products or services built with PostgreSQL, and in turn contribute
code, money and staff time to the project. None of them "own"
PostgreSQL, nor is any individual company responsible for PostgreSQL
code development. This is the same as Linux, Apache or FreeBSD."

It clearly isn't the same as Linux, Apache or FreeBSD. None of those
projects supply only a single installer, downloaded from an external
company's pages.

Would anybody think it acceptable if the training link on the home page
of postgresql.org went straight to 2ndQuadrant.com? (etc). What if I
gave away course material for a few, but not all of our courses? (They
take a long time to write, after all).

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> It clearly isn't the same as Linux, Apache or FreeBSD. None of those
> projects supply only a single installer, downloaded from an external
> company's pages.

Virtually all PostgreSQL packages come from a third party site. Here's
a few from our download pages:

http://www.freebsd.org/ports
http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postgresql&searchon=names&suite=stable§ion=all
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://software.opensuse.org/search
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/browse.php?summary=postgresql
http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=postgresql

In fact, the only ones that we do link to downloads for on
postgresql.org, are the Solaris binaries and source code.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Thank you for your response.

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:08 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > We should either
> > i) remove it
> > ii) auction/openly charge for the advertising space
> > iii) have a credits or sponsors list
>
> First, I agree with many points of this thread, but I do want to point out
> that like *alot* of companies out there (CMD, EnterpriseDB, Redhat), they
> have already sunk a huge amount of money into personnel that are working
> directly on the code ...

For which they have been thanked in the normal way. Presumably no
additional thanks required then?

> The OneClick Installer is one of EDB's most *visible* contribution ...
> there is nothing stopping someone else with duplicating that effort, but I
> doubt that will happen ...

> As Dave mentions, EDB employs *several* ppl that work on that installer,
> which is not small contribution in terms of both man hours *and* monetary
> value ...

I think we should realise that they needed to write an installer anyway,
for their pay-for products.

> We have several places on the web site were we acknowledge other
> contributions ... if anything is missing from the installer (and I don't
> know that it is), it would be some sort of link *to* the list of Project
> Contributors in a prominent way .. but as the installer itself is their
> contribution, "charging for advertising space" on it doesn't quite seem
> reasonable, unless, of course, EDB wanted to charge for the advertising
> space to offset the budget they put into developing and maintaining it?

It seems it is a question of ownership. Are the installers the property
of the PostgreSQL Project or an external company?

If the installers are the property of the PostgreSQL Project then
certain constraints need to be imposed.

If the installers are property of an external company then they can do
whatever they like. But we can still control whether or not we link to
them.

In the past the PostgreSQL Project had its own installers that were
maintained by volunteer contributors. When was it announced that there
would be no Windows installer in this release and that we would rely on
an external company to produce it instead? When did we put that piece of
work out to public tender?

If we're short of money and need to raise some to fund a skill shortage
or because we have insufficient volunteers, then why not sell
advertising on the installer? If we don't like the idea of general
advertising, why is having just one advertiser acceptable?

If the project is accepting contributions from external companies with
strings attached then there should be some oversight, control and
guidance of that. Even if there is only one viable bidder.

If nobody is monitoring what goes into the installer, what is to stop
the external company requiring registrations prior to download? Or
charging for it? Or tracking people's information? Who has vetted the
privacy policy of the external company? Have we a legal agreement that
says these things will not change?  What is the difference between a
respected, benevolent company such as IBM having patents in our code and
another benevolent company having a monopoly on our installers? What if
a non-nice company bought the nice company and then started exerting
leverage?

If there are no controls on what can be included with the software, what
is to stop Mammoth replicator being put on the Download page? Mammoth is
just PostgreSQL, plus some additional items. Why does it make a
difference whether those additional items are splash screens (OK) or
changes to installation directories (OK) or useful additional production
software (apparently not OK)? Why are some "value adds" allowed and
others not? Note that EDB Advanced Server already *is* on the download
page, since we link externally. So why not put EDB Advanced Server and
all the other variants on the postgresql.org download page and be done?
That seems like the pragmatic response.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

Andreas Pflug wrote:

> But there's also the aspect that the postgres download page for Windows,
> Linux and MacOSX will redirect to an EDB page, which really was the
> first thing that irritated me (forgot to mention). Why is that so, why
> not a postgres page? Do we want/need  EDB to officially host postgres
> stuff, esp with PostgreSQL listed as one of EDB's featured products?

Right.  We have a working mirror system.  Why aren't the one-click
packages hosted there?

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
>
>
>> But there's also the aspect that the postgres download page for Windows,
>> Linux and MacOSX will redirect to an EDB page, which really was the
>> first thing that irritated me (forgot to mention). Why is that so, why
>> not a postgres page? Do we want/need  EDB to officially host postgres
>> stuff, esp with PostgreSQL listed as one of EDB's featured products?
>>
>
> Right.  We have a working mirror system.  Why aren't the one-click
> packages hosted there?
>

From an EDB point of view, the answer is simple: it generates a lot of
traffic on a page advertising their products. Imagine you'd have to buy
this traffic with adwords...


Regards,
Andreas

On 7/8/09, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
>
>> But there's also the aspect that the postgres download page for Windows,
>> Linux and MacOSX will redirect to an EDB page, which really was the
>> first thing that irritated me (forgot to mention). Why is that so, why
>> not a postgres page? Do we want/need  EDB to officially host postgres
>> stuff, esp with PostgreSQL listed as one of EDB's featured products?
>
> Right.  We have a working mirror system.  Why aren't the one-click
> packages hosted there?

Because, when we first discussed the one-click installers with
community members at pgcon last year, a number of ppl said they felt
the downloads should remain on our site so it was blatantly clear
where they came from.

Thus, we invested in Akamai services to host the downloads at the best
possible speed for users, allowing them to avoid choosing from a list
of mirrors with un-predictable connectivity speeds.



--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On 7/8/09, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Andreas Pflug wrote:
> >
> >> But there's also the aspect that the postgres download page for Windows,
> >> Linux and MacOSX will redirect to an EDB page, which really was the
> >> first thing that irritated me (forgot to mention). Why is that so, why
> >> not a postgres page? Do we want/need  EDB to officially host postgres
> >> stuff, esp with PostgreSQL listed as one of EDB's featured products?
> >
> > Right.  We have a working mirror system.  Why aren't the one-click
> > packages hosted there?
>
> Because, when we first discussed the one-click installers with
> community members at pgcon last year, a number of ppl said they felt
> the downloads should remain on our site so it was blatantly clear
> where they came from.

Yeah, but that was when we still had the MSI installer which was the
main Windows installer.  Now the situation is completely different.
There was no warning whatsoever that that installer was going to
disappear.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> > I wonder how many non-EDB contributors have seen the One-Click
> > installer; I never used it until 8.4. I was quite irritated how
> > prominently the EnterpriseDB lettering is placed on the installer; apart
> > from a tiny "Packaged by" the graphics is a pgsql Elephant with a big
> > "EnterpriseDB(tm)" on top, with no PostgreSQL lettering around. From the
> > installer's appearance, you could get the impression EDB is the company
> > behind postgres.
>
> EDB *is* the company behind those installers. We have a number of
> people working on them, between two and three working full time in the
> lead up to 8.4 on testing and development.
>
> The logo is a large elephant logo, which is probably 3 times the size
> of the 'packaged by edb' logo. It is shown on 2 of the 9 installer
> screens.
>
> The splash screen shown by the installer at startup is based on the
> blue gradient website banner, containing the elephant, and 'world's
> most advanced open source database' tagline, with no EDB logo or text
> etc. at all.

The problem is that EDB's logo contains their name, while the PostgreSQL
elephant doesn't, so having only the two logos isn't even.  What Dave
suggested and my son Matthew implemented is a new installer logo, moving
the Postgres elephant logo to the top and adding the "PostgreSQL" name,
and moving the EnterpriseDB logo to the bottom.  Here is the result,
which will appear in the next version of the installer:

    http://momjian.us/expire/logo.png

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> > > I wonder how many non-EDB contributors have seen the One-Click
> > > installer; I never used it until 8.4. I was quite irritated how
> > > prominently the EnterpriseDB lettering is placed on the installer; apart
> > > from a tiny "Packaged by" the graphics is a pgsql Elephant with a big
> > > "EnterpriseDB(tm)" on top, with no PostgreSQL lettering around. From the
> > > installer's appearance, you could get the impression EDB is the company
> > > behind postgres.
> >
> > EDB *is* the company behind those installers. We have a number of
> > people working on them, between two and three working full time in the
> > lead up to 8.4 on testing and development.
> >
> > The logo is a large elephant logo, which is probably 3 times the size
> > of the 'packaged by edb' logo. It is shown on 2 of the 9 installer
> > screens.
> >
> > The splash screen shown by the installer at startup is based on the
> > blue gradient website banner, containing the elephant, and 'world's
> > most advanced open source database' tagline, with no EDB logo or text
> > etc. at all.
>
> The problem is that EDB's logo contains their name, while the PostgreSQL
> elephant doesn't, so having only the two logos isn't even.  What Dave
> suggested and my son Matthew implemented is a new installer logo, moving
> the Postgres elephant logo to the top and adding the "PostgreSQL" name,
> and moving the EnterpriseDB logo to the bottom.  Here is the result,
> which will appear in the next version of the installer:
>
>     http://momjian.us/expire/logo.png

A new idea --- would people like the PostgreSQL elephant logo added to
the EnterpriseDB download page:

    http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/pgdownload.do#windows

Is that helpful or harmful?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> The problem is that EDB's logo contains their name, while the PostgreSQL
> elephant doesn't, so having only the two logos isn't even.  What Dave
> suggested and my son Matthew implemented is a new installer logo, moving
> the Postgres elephant logo to the top and adding the "PostgreSQL" name,
> and moving the EnterpriseDB logo to the bottom.  Here is the result,
> which will appear in the next version of the installer:
>
>     http://momjian.us/expire/logo.png
>
>
IMHO this is a good step in the right direction, but BitRock certainly
invested even more time into creating the base installer than EDB into
the pgsql specific part. BitRock doesn't present their lettering so
prominently either.

As Greg wrote:
> It's a big chunk of time they're basically sponsoring in return for
the associated PR

That's the very problem. All other contributing companies don't have the
chance to earn this PR from their contribution, so it's not really fair.

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Andreas Pflug wrote:

> All other contributing companies don't have the chance to earn this PR
> from their contribution, so it's not really fair.

All I was trying to suggest was that until you find somebody else capable
of taking over the job, which unlike a lot of other contributions requires
a recurring and unbounded time investment to keep going, this whole
discussion of fairness is lacking a practical side to it.  I don't care
about the PR either way, what I'm concerned about is that excessive
backlash against EDB here might cause the work on the installer they're
doing to be dropped or otherwise scaled back.  That would be a bad outcome
that hurts the community rather directly, and I think the downside of that
isn't being estimated correctly by everyone.  Be careful you know what
you're getting into when you wish for something to change...

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

Until now, I had been using the installer for Windows installations, and
never had a look at the pure zips (while I always compiled from source
on *ix systems) Now, I decided to check into the zip package since the
1-C-I doesn't really meet my requirements, and found that even the zip
link on http://www.postgresql.org/download/windows redirects to
EnterpriseDB's download pages! That's  ... bold.

Digging further:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/download.do


Apparently EDB already HAS taken over the project, but some of us
haven't noticed so far.

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> Until now, I had been using the installer for Windows installations, and
> never had a look at the pure zips (while I always compiled from source
> on *ix systems) Now, I decided to check into the zip package since the
> 1-C-I doesn't really meet my requirements, and found that even the zip
> link on http://www.postgresql.org/download/windows redirects to
> EnterpriseDB's download pages! That's  ... bold.

Well, yes - where do you think the zip file comes from? The build
scripts create it when they build the installer.

> Digging further:
> http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/download.do
>
> Apparently EDB already HAS taken over the project, but some of us
> haven't noticed so far.

We're not allowed to put our installer on our own download page?

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
>
>> Until now, I had been using the installer for Windows installations, and
>> never had a look at the pure zips (while I always compiled from source
>> on *ix systems) Now, I decided to check into the zip package since the
>> 1-C-I doesn't really meet my requirements, and found that even the zip
>> link on http://www.postgresql.org/download/windows redirects to
>> EnterpriseDB's download pages! That's  ... bold.
>>
>
> Well, yes - where do you think the zip file comes from? The build
> scripts create it when they build the installer.
>
>
>> Digging further:
>> http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/download.do
>>
>> Apparently EDB already HAS taken over the project, but some of us
>> haven't noticed so far.
>>
>
> We're not allowed to put our installer on our own download page?
>

I find it *very* offensive that EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL 8.4 to be
their product. That's what I can read from that page.
Not surprising, the release notes in the zip are EDB branded as well.

This attitude isn't really new to me when it comes to EDB (you know best
what I mean, because that was our very first contact with EDB back then
before you were bought by EDB).

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:

> This attitude isn't really new to me when it comes to EDB (you know best
> what I mean, because that was our very first contact with EDB back then
> before you were bought by EDB).

Andreas, it seems your arguments are loosing their objectivity and are
turn into personal attacks.  If you or anyone else doesn't like the
EDB installer you and anyone else are welcome to join forces and fork
the installer.

--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.

Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:

> I find it *very* offensive that EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL 8.4 to be
> their product. That's what I can read from that page.

Obviously you didn't take the time to read any of the rest of the
site, particularly the PostgreSQL product page where the project,
community and our relationship to it are described in some detail.
Instead, you inferred from the fact that the page has the word
'Products' on it that we think we own the community. It seems like you
are just looking for any way to attack us.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
>
>
>> I find it *very* offensive that EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL 8.4 to be
>> their product. That's what I can read from that page.
>>
>
> Obviously you didn't take the time to read any of the rest of the
> site, particularly the PostgreSQL product page where the project,
> community and our relationship to it are described in some detail.
>
I'm looking at the pages as any first-time user, who mostly won't dig
down into other pages. I'm sure there are pages that precisely state
where the products come from. But the very first impression of that page
is different.

Regards, Andreas

Not to jump into the fray, but:

> I find it *very* offensive that EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL 8.4 to be
> their product. That's what I can read from that page.

Ascertaining this from the EDB download page is a bit of a stretch,
especially considering the line "No support can be provided for these
files" (when downloading the Zip files).

However, this line in the release notes inside the zip file is something
I'd have a problem with, if I were Command Prompt or 2ndQuadrant:  "or if
you need a more formal support arrangement, please visit (EDB Sales URL)".
It ought to be changed to "Please visit one of the commercial providers
found at (Postgres Community Site URL)"

Is anybody else compiling Windows binaries?


--

-----
http://www.globalherald.net/jb01
GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm)

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Kramer<josh@globalherald.net> wrote:
>
> However, this line in the release notes inside the zip file is something I'd
> have a problem with, if I were Command Prompt or 2ndQuadrant:  "or if you
> need a more formal support arrangement, please visit (EDB Sales URL)". It
> ought to be changed to "Please visit one of the commercial providers found
> at (Postgres Community Site URL)"

I'm happy to change that URL to
http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support and adjust the
text accordingly.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Richard Broersma wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
>
>
>> This attitude isn't really new to me when it comes to EDB (you know best
>> what I mean, because that was our very first contact with EDB back then
>> before you were bought by EDB).
>>
>
> Andreas, it seems your arguments are loosing their objectivity and are
> turn into personal attacks.  If you or anyone else doesn't like the
> EDB installer you and anyone else are welcome to join forces and fork
> the installer.
>
Hm, what's objective? Maybe I should have explained a little more for
non-Daves :-) I was referring to a pgadmin-vs-edb licencing issue. Dave
handled it back then on behalf of the pgadmin community.

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:

> Hm, what's objective? Maybe I should have explained a little more for
> non-Daves :-) I was referring to a pgadmin-vs-edb licencing issue. Dave
> handled it back then on behalf of the pgadmin community.

Oh, that. Yes, after badgering by me, EnterpriseDB first fulfilled
their obligations of the licence which they messed up initially, and
some months later provided us with a second-hand Mac to allow me to
work on the Mac port.

I don't think that constitutes being bought though. They did that a
couple of years later with the promise of a nice salary in return for
working for them on Postgres and pgAdmin :-)

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Hm, what's objective? Maybe I should have explained a little more for
>> non-Daves :-) I was referring to a pgadmin-vs-edb licencing issue. Dave
>> handled it back then on behalf of the pgadmin community.
>>
>
> Oh, that. Yes, after badgering by me, EnterpriseDB first fulfilled
> their obligations of the licence which they messed up initially, and
> some months later provided us with a second-hand Mac to allow me to
> work on the Mac port.
>
> I don't think that constitutes being bought though. They did that a
> couple of years later with the promise of a nice salary in return for
> working for them on Postgres and pgAdmin :-)
>
No, the Mac was just a preparation; in hindsight, it was a strategic
move. They get what they want.

Regards,
Andreas

On 7/9/09, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Andreas Pflug<pgadmin@pse-consulting
> No, the Mac was just a preparation; in hindsight, it was a strategic
> move. They get what they want.

Oh good grief. That's the funniest thing i heard all week :-)

EDB didn't buy a laptop, worth far less, and way less powerful than
the ones i already had to butter me up to take a job offer 2.5 years
later! And if they had it was a waste of money!

I work for EDB because i get to work on pgAdmin and Postgres all day
and they pay me a nice wage to keep my family fed. Sheesh, the way you
going on you'd think I took a job with SCO...



--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Joshua Kramer wrote:
>
> Not to jump into the fray, but:
>
> > I find it *very* offensive that EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL 8.4 to be
> > their product. That's what I can read from that page.
>
> Ascertaining this from the EDB download page is a bit of a stretch,
> especially considering the line "No support can be provided for these
> files" (when downloading the Zip files).
>
> However, this line in the release notes inside the zip file is something
> I'd have a problem with, if I were Command Prompt or 2ndQuadrant:  "or if
> you need a more formal support arrangement, please visit (EDB Sales URL)".
> It ought to be changed to "Please visit one of the commercial providers
> found at (Postgres Community Site URL)"

Ah, OK, I found that file you are looking at.  It is created when
Postgres is installed and for Linux it is in:

    /opt/PostgreSQL/8.4/doc/installation-notes.html

and can be accessed from the GUI using PostgreSQL
8.4/Documentation/Installation Notes.  I am attaching the file for
reference.  The problem paragraph is:

    For Installer support, please use the EnterpriseDB forums at
    http://forums.enterprisedb.com/, or if you need a more formal support
    arrangement, please visit
    http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/purchase.do.

I think this paragraph needs to be rewritten.  The first part is talking
about using EnterpriseDB forums for _installer_ problems (which makes
sense), but the "more formal support" is confusing.  Are they saying for
formal installer support?  Because the next paragraph clearly says where
to get Postgres support:

    For PostgreSQL support, please use the appropriate mailing
    list.  A complete list may be found at
    http://www.postgresql.org/lists.html.

And shouldn't we be using the community support URL and not the mailing
list URL:

    http://www.postgresql.org/support/

Anyway, that "formal support" paragraph needs to be modified.  If it
relates to formal _installer_ support, it needs clarification.  If it is
for general support, it should be removed, and I would like to know how
it got in there in the first place.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anyway, that "formal support" paragraph needs to be modified.  If it
> relates to formal _installer_ support, it needs clarification.  If it is
> for general support, it should be removed, and I would like to know how
> it got in there in the first place.

Ah, I see Dave has changed it today in Git:


http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=edb-installers.git;a=commitdiff;h=2d67e6d968850db9ccc16e2d09edfb780a6f378d;hp=e10f263c64d7e2cbf4e017760926421460d98cc9

I am still curious how it got in there in the first place, i.e. who
at EDB thought that was acceptable, and if you don't want to give names,
someone better tell them to avoid such mistakes in the future.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Anyway, that "formal support" paragraph needs to be modified.  If it
>> relates to formal _installer_ support, it needs clarification.  If it is
>> for general support, it should be removed, and I would like to know how
>> it got in there in the first place.
>
> Ah, I see Dave has changed it today in Git:
>
>      
 http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=edb-installers.git;a=commitdiff;h=2d67e6d968850db9ccc16e2d09edfb780a6f378d;hp=e10f263c64d7e2cbf4e017760926421460d98cc9

Oops - I thought I mailed the list, not you alone.

> I am still curious how it got in there in the first place, i.e. who
> at EDB thought that was acceptable, and if you don't want to give names,
> someone better tell them to avoid such mistakes in the future.

I wrote it, under the assumption that no other companies would want to
support our installers (*not* PG support - that's covered in the next
paragraph). As far as I know, noone else at EDB has bothered to read
it. It was one of those Friday afternoon things that got rattled off
in five minutes when I realised we had nowhere to note licence details
or where to get help etc.

As I said - patches are welcome.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Anyway, that "formal support" paragraph needs to be modified. ?If it
> >> relates to formal _installer_ support, it needs clarification. ?If it is
> >> for general support, it should be removed, and I would like to know how
> >> it got in there in the first place.
> >
> > Ah, I see Dave has changed it today in Git:
> >
> > ? ? ?
?http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=edb-installers.git;a=commitdiff;h=2d67e6d968850db9ccc16e2d09edfb780a6f378d;hp=e10f263c64d7e2cbf4e017760926421460d98cc9
>
> Oops - I thought I mailed the list, not you alone.
>
> > I am still curious how it got in there in the first place, i.e. who
> > at EDB thought that was acceptable, and if you don't want to give names,
> > someone better tell them to avoid such mistakes in the future.
>
> I wrote it, under the assumption that no other companies would want to
> support our installers (*not* PG support - that's covered in the next
> paragraph). As far as I know, noone else at EDB has bothered to read
> it. It was one of those Friday afternoon things that got rattled off
> in five minutes when I realised we had nowhere to note licence details
> or where to get help etc.
>
> As I said - patches are welcome.

OK, patch attached that clarifies that that URL is for formal _installer_
support.   I didn't modify the email list URL because no one else
replied to that issue.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
*** /rtmp/installation-notes.html.orig    Thu Jul  9 16:01:22 2009
--- /rtmp/installation-notes.html    Thu Jul  9 16:02:22 2009
***************
*** 28,34 ****

  <h3>Technical Support</h3>

! <p>For Installer support, please use the EnterpriseDB forums at <a
href="http://forums.enterprisedb.com/">http://forums.enterprisedb.com/</a>,or if you need a more formal support
arrangement,please visit <a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/purchase.do">http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/purchase.do</a>.</p>

  <p>For PostgreSQL support, please use the appropriate mailing list. A complete list may be found at <a
href="http://www.postgresql.org/lists.html">http://www.postgresql.org/lists.html</a>.</p>

--- 28,34 ----

  <h3>Technical Support</h3>

! <p>For Installer support, please use the EnterpriseDB forums at <a
href="http://forums.enterprisedb.com/">http://forums.enterprisedb.com/</a>,or for more formal installer support, please
visit<a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/purchase.do">http://www.enterprisedb.com/products/purchase.do</a>.</p>

  <p>For PostgreSQL support, please use the appropriate mailing list. A complete list may be found at <a
href="http://www.postgresql.org/lists.html">http://www.postgresql.org/lists.html</a>.</p>

On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:03 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> OK, patch attached that clarifies that that URL is for formal _installer_
> support.   I didn't modify the email list URL because no one else
> replied to that issue.

Sheesh, I leave for 6 days and look what happens.

Joshua D. Drake



>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org
   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
   503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:03 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > OK, patch attached that clarifies that that URL is for formal _installer_
> > support.   I didn't modify the email list URL because no one else
> > replied to that issue.
>
> Sheesh, I leave for 6 days and look what happens.

We missed you and decided to create some excitement ourselves.  ;-)

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> Ah, I see Dave has changed it today in Git:
>
>      
 http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=edb-installers.git;a=commitdiff;h=2d67e6d968850db9ccc16e2d09edfb780a6f378d;hp=e10f263c64d7e2cbf4e017760926421460d98cc9
>

Dave,

If you will link the Commercial Support page at postgresql.org (which
seems like a good idea), maybe that should go in the next paragraph,
no?

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Jaime
Casanova<jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:

> If you will link the Commercial Support page at postgresql.org (which
> seems like a good idea), maybe that should go in the next paragraph,
> no?

Yeah, I think I'm going to review that whole document. Clearly it needs it.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:

>Thus, we invested in Akamai services to host the downloads at the best
>possible speed for users, allowing them to avoid choosing from a list
>of mirrors with un-predictable connectivity speeds.

Well maybe you should check your investment. I just downloaded the zip
installer
<http://downloads.enterprisedb.com/postgresql/postgresql-8.4.0-1-windows-binaries.zip>
and the D/L speed never exceeded 200KB/s. The average speed was 86KB/s. I
usually get 1,2MB/s for downloads from Microsoft (which also use Akami AFAIK).

Rainer