Thread: First stab at 9.0 release announcement
All, Here's the beginning of drafting the release announcement. Note that the lists of features will change after I get the results of the survey, but I didn't have in mind to change the basic format. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/90ReleaseDraft In general, I don't feel a need for a lot of hyperbole. I think the huge number of major features speak for themselves. So I'd rather focus on features and quotes. Feedback by the marketing geeks (Rob, Sean?) especially wanted. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes: > Here's the beginning of drafting the release announcement. Note that > the lists of features will change after I get the results of the > survey, but I didn't have in mind to change the basic format. > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/90ReleaseDraft > > In general, I don't feel a need for a lot of hyperbole. I think the > huge number of major features speak for themselves. So I'd rather > focus on features and quotes. > > Feedback by the marketing geeks (Rob, Sean?) especially wanted. I did a little bit of rewording, and added in (for convenience), linkage to the release notes. (It's handy for anyone reading the announcement!) I don't see any features that are in the release notes that seem like they strongly need to be added. The ones that seem plausible, but just a bit too marginal for the announcement, to me: - deferrable unique constraints - VACUUM FULL improvements - binary upgrade -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html "MS apparently now has a team dedicated to tracking problems with Linux and publicizing them. I guess eventually they'll figure out this back fires... ;)" -- William Burrow <aa126@DELETE.fan.nb.ca>
On 18 June 2010 20:20, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes:I did a little bit of rewording, and added in (for convenience),
> Here's the beginning of drafting the release announcement. Note that
> the lists of features will change after I get the results of the
> survey, but I didn't have in mind to change the basic format.
>
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/90ReleaseDraft
>
> In general, I don't feel a need for a lot of hyperbole. I think the
> huge number of major features speak for themselves. So I'd rather
> focus on features and quotes.
>
> Feedback by the marketing geeks (Rob, Sean?) especially wanted.
linkage to the release notes. (It's handy for anyone reading the
announcement!)
I don't see any features that are in the release notes that seem like
they strongly need to be added. The ones that seem plausible, but
just a bit too marginal for the announcement, to me:
- deferrable unique constraints
- VACUUM FULL improvements
- binary upgrade
--
A few proposals
"The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of version 9.0. "
Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"?
Anonymous functions instead of anonymous blocks? Else put the word "code" before blocks.
Instead of "driving PostgreSQL's competition" use a synonym for "driving" as it sounds weird after just mentioning "drive" in the previous sentence.... or change the one in the previous sentence... I dunno.
As for the "blah blah blah" bits... look good to me ;)
Thom
> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release
> of version 9.0. "
>
> Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"?
Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so?
> Anonymous functions instead of anonymous blocks? Else put the word
> "code" before blocks.
Oh, right.
> Instead of "driving PostgreSQL's competition" use a synonym for
> "driving" as it sounds weird after just mentioning "drive" in the
> previous sentence.... or change the one in the previous sentence... I dunno.
Yeah, I didn't like the wording on that either. I just didn't have
better ideas.
Thanks for edits.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release > > of version 9.0. " > > > > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? > > Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? O.k. this may not fly but: The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not team) is proud to announce the release of 9. You could flow it forward with things like: 9 represents a major step forward in the PostgreSQL heritage by providing features such as... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release > > of version 9.0. " > > > > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? > > Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? O.k. this may not fly but: The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not team) is proud to announce the release of 9. You could flow it forward with things like: 9 represents a major step forward in the PostgreSQL heritage by providing features such as... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 02:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release >> > of version 9.0. " >> > >> > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? >> >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? > > O.k. this may not fly but: > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not team) > is proud to announce the release of 9. Can we please *not* call it 9, but stick to 9.0? We have enough people talking about PostgreSQL 7 and PostgreSQL 8 not knowing that 8.0 and 8.4 are quite significantly different products already. We don't need to encourage *more* of that. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 13:34 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 02:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release > >> > of version 9.0. " > >> > > >> > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? > >> > >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? > > > > O.k. this may not fly but: > > > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not team) > > is proud to announce the release of 9. > > Can we please *not* call it 9, but stick to 9.0? > > We have enough people talking about PostgreSQL 7 and PostgreSQL 8 not > knowing that 8.0 and 8.4 are quite significantly different products > already. We don't need to encourage *more* of that. Hmpf you are right. I didn't think about that aspect. Joshua D. Drake > > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 13:34 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 02:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release > >> > of version 9.0. " > >> > > >> > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? > >> > >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? > > > > O.k. this may not fly but: > > > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not team) > > is proud to announce the release of 9. > > Can we please *not* call it 9, but stick to 9.0? > > We have enough people talking about PostgreSQL 7 and PostgreSQL 8 not > knowing that 8.0 and 8.4 are quite significantly different products > already. We don't need to encourage *more* of that. Hmpf you are right. I didn't think about that aspect. Joshua D. Drake > > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Chris Browne wrote: > I don't see any features that are in the release notes that seem like > they strongly need to be added. The ones that seem plausible, but > just a bit too marginal for the announcement, to me: > > - binary upgrade > I think that having in-place upgrade bundled with the database, essentially blessing it as ready for serious use by the entire development community, is the biggest improvement in PostgreSQL 9.0. And, yes, I include the replication improvements in that ranking when I say that. That's from both a technical (administrators will be happy) and a FUD (remove that from the list of reasons not to use PostgreSQL) perspective. Wander into any popular tech discussion forum when the usual MySQL vs. PostgreSQL vs. everybody else discussions pop up, and lack of binary upgrade is constantly mentioned as a reason not to use the database. Saying "you can grab this migrator tool from this site..." is a much better response than we had last year, but really driving home that this is a solved problem for the database now is vital for what I expect to be a widely distributed press release IMHO. I submitted a response to Josh's survey which can get averaged along with everyone else for the other features not on the list. I made my other selections based on both the strength of the feature along with how I perceived its ability to be understandable to those not already using PostgreSQL too. So for me, VACUUM FULL rewrite is out just because those not already using PostgreSQL know or cares what that means, while things like the constraint improvements make a better candidate because that's an understandable improvements to anyone familiar with SQL databases. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:34:37PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 02:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce > >> > the release of version 9.0. " > >> > > >> > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? > >> > >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? > > > > O.k. this may not fly but: > > > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not > > team) is proud to announce the release of 9. > > Can we please *not* call it 9, but stick to 9.0? Another way to deal with this would be to make the next one 10, the following one 11, etc., etc. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On 21 June 2010 16:12, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:34:37PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 02:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce >> >> > the release of version 9.0. " >> >> > >> >> > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? >> >> >> >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? >> > >> > O.k. this may not fly but: >> > >> > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not >> > team) is proud to announce the release of 9. >> >> Can we please *not* call it 9, but stick to 9.0? > > Another way to deal with this would be to make the next one 10, the > following one 11, etc., etc. :) > You mean we're not going to have PostgreSQL X? Ah, but then it might get shortened to PGX, and then we'd be in a kerfuffle. ;) Thom
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:16:13PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > On 21 June 2010 16:12, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 01:34:37PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 02:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> >> > "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce > >> >> > the release of version 9.0. " > >> >> > > >> >> > Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? > >> > > >> > O.k. this may not fly but: > >> > > >> > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group (that is who we are, not > >> > team) is proud to announce the release of 9. > >> > >> Can we please *not* call it 9, but stick to 9.0? > > > > Another way to deal with this would be to make the next one 10, the > > following one 11, etc., etc. :) > > You mean we're not going to have PostgreSQL X? Ah, but then it might > get shortened to PGX, and then we'd be in a kerfuffle. ;) I see you have uncovered my dastardly plan to capture versions up to 49 for PGX(LIX). ;) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On 6/18/10 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release
>>> of version 9.0. "
>>>
>>> Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"?
>> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so?
Well, one of the things I've thought was the following:
The PostgerSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release
of PostgreSQL 9.0, the 31st release of the world's leading open source
relational database system.
... however, that seemed excessively wordy. No?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On 22 June 2010 13:43, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:22:52PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 6/18/10 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release >> >>> of version 9.0. " >> >>> >> >>> Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"? >> >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so? >> >> Well, one of the things I've thought was the following: >> >> The PostgerSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release >> of PostgreSQL 9.0, the 31st release of the world's leading open source >> relational database system. >> >> ... however, that seemed excessively wordy. No? > > It's approaching wordiness, but it still has my vote (minus the typo). If I'm > in the minority on this one, however, my second choice has us using two > sentences: > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of > PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open > source relational database system. > Hmm... saying 31st almost sounds like it's just another normal release. Couldn't you make it something like "This landmark version marks the 31st release of..." Thom
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > The PostgerSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release > of PostgreSQL 9.0, the 31st release of the world's leading open source > relational database system. s/Team/Group -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:22:52PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 6/18/10 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 17:22 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release
> >>> of version 9.0. "
> >>>
> >>> Maybe "PostgreSQL 9.0" instead of "version 9.0"?
> >> Yeah, tried that too, it seemed repetitive. You don't think so?
>
> Well, one of the things I've thought was the following:
>
> The PostgerSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release
> of PostgreSQL 9.0, the 31st release of the world's leading open source
> relational database system.
>
> ... however, that seemed excessively wordy. No?
It's approaching wordiness, but it still has my vote (minus the typo). If I'm
in the minority on this one, however, my second choice has us using two
sentences:
The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of
PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open
source relational database system.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
Attachment
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:22:52PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 6/18/10 5:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Well, one of the things I've thought was the following: >> >> The PostgerSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release >> of PostgreSQL 9.0, the 31st release of the world's leading open source >> relational database system. >> >> ... however, that seemed excessively wordy. No? > > It's approaching wordiness, but it still has my vote (minus the typo). If I'm > in the minority on this one, however, my second choice has us using two > sentences: > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of > PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open > source relational database system. I like both these versions, but could we use a different word to replace the second "release"? I don't know if "version" would be appropriate, but we should use some synonym. (We shouldn't have so many "releases" so close together, as it were. ;) ) ---Michael Brewer mbrewer@gmail.com
>Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the 31st release of the world's leading open source > relational database system. What does that number represent? I see 26 releases of 8.0 alone, so it would appear we're not counting minor releases. Are we counting everything starting with Stonebraker? All the way back to Ingres? Without some explanation or context, this will just be confusing for most readers. -Kevin
thombrown@gmail.com (Thom Brown) writes: >> The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of >> PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open >> source relational database system. >> > > Hmm... saying 31st almost sounds like it's just another normal > release. Couldn't you make it something like "This landmark version > marks the 31st release of..." Equivocating a bit... - It *is* routine to let out new releases of PostgreSQL. Sufficiently routine that it has happened 31 times. That there is a new release doesn't indicate a "landmark." - What is NOT routine, and, presumably, interesting to explain, is why this release was sufficiently "landmarkish" (and I'm not loving the use of the word "landmark" here, so it will correctly look like I'm making a bit of fun of its use :-)) to justify bumping from version 8.x to 9.0. I recall the Core reasons (at least, those that were expressed) to justify the 9.x bump being: - The enhancements to WAL replication - Availability of pg_migrator I might be a bit absent in my recall, but when explaining the 9.x bump, it's pretty apropos to jump back to "Why Did They Decide To Bump to 9.0?" and we can surely expect that the items that were at the root of that decision should be worth mentioning. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html "MS apparently now has a team dedicated to tracking problems with Linux and publicizing them. I guess eventually they'll figure out this back fires... ;)" -- William Burrow <aa126@DELETE.fan.nb.ca>
Thom Brown wrote: > > ? ?The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of > > ? ?PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open > > ? ?source relational database system. > > > > Hmm... saying 31st almost sounds like it's just another normal > release. Couldn't you make it something like "This landmark version > marks the 31st release of..." Getting '31' in there certainly reinforces our seriousness as a database and as a community. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Thom Brown wrote: >> > ? ?The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of >> > ? ?PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open >> > ? ?source relational database system. >> > >> >> Hmm... saying 31st almost sounds like it's just another normal >> release. Couldn't you make it something like "This landmark version >> marks the 31st release of..." > > Getting '31' in there certainly reinforces our seriousness as a > database and as a community. Only if it has some grounding in fact - noone has answered Kevin's question yet about what it actually refers to. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On 24 June 2010 09:35, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> Thom Brown wrote: >>> > ? ?The PostgreSQL Global Development Team is proud to announce the release of >>> > ? ?PostgreSQL 9.0. This is the 31st release of the world's leading open >>> > ? ?source relational database system. >>> > >>> >>> Hmm... saying 31st almost sounds like it's just another normal >>> release. Couldn't you make it something like "This landmark version >>> marks the 31st release of..." >> >> Getting '31' in there certainly reinforces our seriousness as a >> database and as a community. > > Only if it has some grounding in fact - noone has answered Kevin's > question yet about what it actually refers to. > I can't get to that number either. If you take the 6 releases from the 6.x series, 5 from 7.x, 5 from 8.x and then 9, that's 17. Does throwing in Postgres95 and POSTGRES 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x bring it up to 31? Thom
Firstly, on this momentous day in our country’s history, it’s worth mentioning that our Prime Minister has been ousted in a bloodless coup. We don't get to have the fun that people in OTHER third world countries enjoy: No troops called out. No radio stations or airports stormed. No bombs, no buildings destroyed...
We are a boring lot: It’s un-Australian to get worked up about anything – except when the beer is warm.
Kicking out our leader is not news. This time we have our first female Prime Minister. Hopefully she will do a better job than the last guy.
I've held back making suggestions about the forthcoming launch until I could get my head around a useful approach to preparing the announcement – though I have been tossing a few ideas around with Josh.
I believe that there is a great opportunity to reach a new audience with the release of 9.0 if the announcement is well targeted. I think the stars are in alignment for an upswing of interest in a genuinely open-source database by people who have clung to other choices till now. Conversely, I fear there is a real risk that we will miss the boat if we don’t grasp this opportunity.
So I want to ask some dumb questions to see if I can flesh out the right message. I am not concerned about how many new features it has. I’ll leave others to sort that out. I am more concerned about making it more accessible. e.g. I think this quote is kind of cool:
What I want to do is find more interesting pieces just like this to build an article of 700-1000 words that I want to try to get published in a few national magazines. Even if it’s all been said before in one form or another doesn’t matter. It’s time to say it again – but with a more accessible slant. Any suggestions would be a great help.
One thing I’d like to do is find out what it would take to get people who are using other databases to switch. Maybe a few hundred words should be devoted to describing how easy it is to make the switch. Or if it needs more words, to direct people to a site that deals with it. Another issue, I suspect, is that many ISPs don’t support PostgreSQL. If that is the case, what do we have to do to convince them to offer it?
Any other suggestions?
Regards
Rob Napier
We are a boring lot: It’s un-Australian to get worked up about anything – except when the beer is warm.
Kicking out our leader is not news. This time we have our first female Prime Minister. Hopefully she will do a better job than the last guy.
I've held back making suggestions about the forthcoming launch until I could get my head around a useful approach to preparing the announcement – though I have been tossing a few ideas around with Josh.
I believe that there is a great opportunity to reach a new audience with the release of 9.0 if the announcement is well targeted. I think the stars are in alignment for an upswing of interest in a genuinely open-source database by people who have clung to other choices till now. Conversely, I fear there is a real risk that we will miss the boat if we don’t grasp this opportunity.
So I want to ask some dumb questions to see if I can flesh out the right message. I am not concerned about how many new features it has. I’ll leave others to sort that out. I am more concerned about making it more accessible. e.g. I think this quote is kind of cool:
PostgreSQL is a direct descendent of a project sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other groups back in 1986. These are the same people who spawned the Internet!
What I want to do is find more interesting pieces just like this to build an article of 700-1000 words that I want to try to get published in a few national magazines. Even if it’s all been said before in one form or another doesn’t matter. It’s time to say it again – but with a more accessible slant. Any suggestions would be a great help.
One thing I’d like to do is find out what it would take to get people who are using other databases to switch. Maybe a few hundred words should be devoted to describing how easy it is to make the switch. Or if it needs more words, to direct people to a site that deals with it. Another issue, I suspect, is that many ISPs don’t support PostgreSQL. If that is the case, what do we have to do to convince them to offer it?
Any other suggestions?
Regards
Rob Napier
Hello Everyone, > What I want to do is find more interesting pieces just like this to build an > article of 700-1000 words that I want to try to get published in a few > national magazines. Even if it’s all been said before in one form or another Just so everyone is aware - Linux Journal accepted my proposal for a feature-length (~2,500 word) article on PostgreSQL 9, and I have a firm due date in early August. The outline is fairly flexible at this point. My intent was to aim it squarely at the MySQL / PHB crowd, though there are fewer PHB's than MySQL aficionados that read Linux Journal. For copyright reasons I can't use the same text as anyone else for any part of the article, but if we come up with a common strategy we can appear as a unified front in the various publications that accept articles about PostgreSQL. Cheers, -Joshua Kramer -- ----- http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm)
> PostgreSQL is a direct descendent of a project sponsored by the > Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other > groups back in 1986. These are the same people who spawned the > Internet! Brainstorm: let's think of lots of ways that PostgreSQL is like the internet. -- ----- http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm)
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> Getting '31' in there certainly reinforces our seriousness as a >> database and as a community. > > Only if it has some grounding in fact - noone has answered Kevin's > question yet about what it actually refers to. If we base it on this page, we could say it was the 175th release: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release.html I'm still mystified by the "31" number. -Kevin
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 12:30 -0400, Joshua Kramer wrote: > > PostgreSQL is a direct descendent of a project sponsored by the > > Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other > > groups back in 1986. These are the same people who spawned the > > Internet! > > Brainstorm: let's think of lots of ways that PostgreSQL is like the > internet. Other things: Why this is the perfect time to jump to PostgreSQL with Oracle's purchase of MySQL. Licensing Lack of fragmentation in the OSS space (unlike MySQL) First class enterprise support (HS/SR/Partitioning/Functions/Recursive Queries) etc... > > -- > > ----- > http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 > GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm) > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 09:57 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > >> Getting '31' in there certainly reinforces our seriousness as a > >> database and as a community. > > > > Only if it has some grounding in fact - noone has answered Kevin's > > question yet about what it actually refers to. > > If we base it on this page, we could say it was the 175th release: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release.html > > I'm still mystified by the "31" number. Me too and if we are mystified (community members) nobody else is going to understand the significance. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
> Me too and if we are mystified (community members) nobody else is going
> to understand the significance.
31 was from my attempt to count major releases by regex. Clearly I made
a mistake in my regex.
The relevant question isn't what is the number, but is mentioning a
number as all helpful or distracting?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 10:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Me too and if we are mystified (community members) nobody else is going > > to understand the significance. > > 31 was from my attempt to count major releases by regex. Clearly I made > a mistake in my regex. > > The relevant question isn't what is the number, but is mentioning a > number as all helpful or distracting? The think the number isn't useful. > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > The relevant question isn't what is the number, but is mentioning > a number as all helpful or distracting? I think it would be distracting if it isn't given immediate context. It might be possible for a skillful wordsmith to spin a positive from the years of development since PostgreSQL 6.0 emerged, with a major features release about once per year since then, from hundreds of contributors. And if you're thinking about numbers, don't forget the active community of users and developers which provides support which (at least in my experience) is far superior to that of any commercial vendor. If you could get a count of distinct people who have responded to posts on these lists (no small feat, I'm sure), it would give some sense of the scale of the community and the resources at the disposal of those who need help. -Kevin
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 12:30 -0400, Joshua Kramer wrote: > > PostgreSQL is a direct descendent of a project sponsored by the > > Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other > > groups back in 1986. These are the same people who spawned the > > Internet! > > Brainstorm: let's think of lots of ways that PostgreSQL is like the > internet. Other things: Why this is the perfect time to jump to PostgreSQL with Oracle's purchase of MySQL. Licensing Lack of fragmentation in the OSS space (unlike MySQL) First class enterprise support (HS/SR/Partitioning/Functions/Recursive Queries) etc... > > -- > > ----- > http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 > GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm) > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 09:57 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > >> Getting '31' in there certainly reinforces our seriousness as a > >> database and as a community. > > > > Only if it has some grounding in fact - noone has answered Kevin's > > question yet about what it actually refers to. > > If we base it on this page, we could say it was the 175th release: > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release.html > > I'm still mystified by the "31" number. Me too and if we are mystified (community members) nobody else is going to understand the significance. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 10:29 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Me too and if we are mystified (community members) nobody else is going > > to understand the significance. > > 31 was from my attempt to count major releases by regex. Clearly I made > a mistake in my regex. > > The relevant question isn't what is the number, but is mentioning a > number as all helpful or distracting? The think the number isn't useful. > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
All,
After some thought, I reorganized the release draft around the quotes we
have (so far) as well as making it stick to the themes we have. Again,
here's the theme:
1) HS/SR
2) Many many new features
It still needs some wordsmithing though. Please help.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com