Thread: Download strategy
I must say I'm a little disappointed about the current discussion on how the downloads are currently organised. The current layout was discussed with numerous members of the webteam, both on and off-list before it was implemented, and was done so based on feedback from users and third parties who were able to provide useful hints through their own dealings with users and potential users. The original download area was confusing. We had links on the homepages that pointed to source code and windows binaries. We had multiple pages linking to related projects, and we had a download page that linked into parts of our FTP site, as well as a largely unmanaged list of third party sites. We regularly received emails asking where/what people needed to download. The revised strategy included a number of ideas to improve matters: - *All* external download links should point to /download, except where intentionally pointing to a specific package. - Browsing of the FTP area should be a last resort for the user, never something we direct them to do. - All third-party products and add-ons etc. should be moved into the new software catalogue. - All third party 'non-community-standard' PostgreSQL distributions (e.g. Postgres Plus, BitNami, Bizgres) would be moved to a secondary list under the main server downloads. - 'Community standard' PostgreSQL distributions would be given top-most listing on the download page, categorised by operating system. These packages come from postgresql.org and a variety of third party sites. - Within each operating system category, downloads would be listed in order of ease of use for the complete novice and then alphabetically. This is because it was perceived that the majority of 'what do I download' questions came from the real novices, for whom a one-click installer is easier to understand than a long list of RPMs, DEBs or ports, most of which they won't need. The more experienced users will naturally choose the platform-native packages anyway, as that's what they will be looking for. And guess what? It's worked. *All* the feedback I've received has commented on how it's far, far easier to find the appropriate downloads now, and since the changes were implemented, I don't think I've seen a single 'what/where do I download' email. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > I must say I'm a little disappointed about the current discussion on > how the downloads are currently organised. The current layout was > discussed with numerous members of the webteam, both on and off-list > before it was implemented, and was done so based on feedback from > users and third parties who were able to provide useful hints through > their own dealings with users and potential users. > And guess what? It's worked. *All* the feedback I've received has > commented on how it's far, far easier to find the appropriate > downloads now, and since the changes were implemented, I don't think > I've seen a single 'what/where do I download' email. > Easy Dave :) Nothing is perfect and we are really only talking about one facet of all the hard work you did. I did offer a suggestion on this thread that I felt might make the great work you did even easier: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2008-09/msg00110.php For the record I would agree that the current situation is a billion times better than what we had. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I did offer a suggestion on this thread that I felt might make the great > work you did even easier: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2008-09/msg00110.php My own opinion is that that doesn't do much, other than complicate the front page and lead to a whole bunch of small sub-pages. The reason the complexity is currently on the sub pages is that the descriptions are there as well, so the user can choose what they know they need without having to click to read the description first. With your proposed changes, they potentially need to click into a subpage before they know whether or not it's the right option for them > For the record I would agree that the current situation is a billion times > better than what we had. Thanks :-) -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> I did offer a suggestion on this thread that I felt might make the great >> work you did even easier: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2008-09/msg00110.php > > My own opinion is that that doesn't do much, other than complicate the > front page and lead to a whole bunch of small sub-pages. No sub pages, direct links. Alternatively (for the 32bit 64bit problem) have it point to an internal ref on a single second page. > >> For the record I would agree that the current situation is a billion times >> better than what we had. > > Thanks :-) > Joshua D. Drake
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > No sub pages, direct links. Alternatively (for the 32bit 64bit problem) have > it point to an internal ref on a single second page. Then where does the descriptions/installation info/distributor info go? The other reason it's on sub pages right now is because in the old layout, /download was far too long. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave, > And guess what? It's worked. *All* the feedback I've received has > commented on how it's far, far easier to find the appropriate > downloads now, and since the changes were implemented, I don't think > I've seen a single 'what/where do I download' email. As you know, I'm strongly in favor of promoting the one-click installer as the default option for most binaries, so that we can start bundling "accessories". Tom's desire to keep too many features out of core just makes this more important. So I'm very happy with the current page layout. I was only reacting to the claim that you had to fill out a registration form. Since you don't, there's no issue. Sorry for not checking it myself. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL San Francisco
On Thursday 18 September 2008 03:58:58 Dave Page wrote:
> - Within each operating system category, downloads would be listed in
> order of ease of use for the complete novice and then alphabetically.
> This is because it was perceived that the majority of 'what do I
> download' questions came from the real novices, for whom a one-click
> installer is easier to understand than a long list of RPMs, DEBs or
> ports, most of which they won't need. The more experienced users will
> naturally choose the platform-native packages anyway, as that's what
> they will be looking for.
>
You know, I find it arguable that it is "easier" to use the "postgresql" yum
repository rather than the built in stuff in centos/rhel/fedora, and I'm not
sure we should be promoting what is essentially a 3rd party system over the
vendor supplied rpms.
Disclaimer: I use CMD's yum repo on some boxes, so I clearly think it is the
better option, but it is a 3rd party website, and not an official postgresql
resource, which I don't think is very clear from the website text (which
actually ignores the vendor options completely)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > You know, I find it arguable that it is "easier" to use the "postgresql" yum > repository rather than the built in stuff in centos/rhel/fedora, It's not that it's necessarily easier than running 'yum install xxx', it's that it's easier than figuring that you need postgresql, postgresql-devel, postgresql-docs, postgresql-libs, pgadmin3, pljava.... A one-click package is also what the majority of people coming from a commercial background are likely to be used to. > and I'm not > sure we should be promoting what is essentially a 3rd party system over the > vendor supplied rpms. Vendor supplied RPMs are not released in the timely fashion that Devrim's are, nor do they have such a wide range of PostgreSQL packages as far as I'm aware. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thursday 18 September 2008 15:45:38 Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Robert Treat
>
> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > You know, I find it arguable that it is "easier" to use the "postgresql"
> > yum repository rather than the built in stuff in centos/rhel/fedora,
>
> It's not that it's necessarily easier than running 'yum install xxx',
> it's that it's easier than figuring that you need postgresql,
> postgresql-devel, postgresql-docs, postgresql-libs, pgadmin3,
> pljava....
>
> A one-click package is also what the majority of people coming from a
> commercial background are likely to be used to.
>
huh? i'm not talking about the one-click installer, I'm talking about
pgsqlrpms vs rhel rpms.
> > and I'm not
> > sure we should be promoting what is essentially a 3rd party system over
> > the vendor supplied rpms.
>
> Vendor supplied RPMs are not released in the timely fashion that
> Devrim's are, nor do they have such a wide range of PostgreSQL
> packages as far as I'm aware.
Is that a reason to ignore the vendor? Remember for people using something
like RHEL, using pgdg rpms might be in violation of the support terms.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > huh? i'm not talking about the one-click installer, I'm talking about > pgsqlrpms vs rhel rpms. Sorry - getting late; I misread what you wrote. >> > and I'm not >> > sure we should be promoting what is essentially a 3rd party system over >> > the vendor supplied rpms. >> >> Vendor supplied RPMs are not released in the timely fashion that >> Devrim's are, nor do they have such a wide range of PostgreSQL >> packages as far as I'm aware. > > Is that a reason to ignore the vendor? Remember for people using something > like RHEL, using pgdg rpms might be in violation of the support terms. We're not ignoring the vendor - it's just that no one wrote the text for that particular vendor yet. I did ask here a couple of times for people to help populate the list with alternative distributions (and to improve the text for the existing ones); you're welcome to provide a patch :-p -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > I must say I'm a little disappointed about the current discussion on > how the downloads are currently organised. The current layout was > discussed with numerous members of the webteam, both on and off-list > before it was implemented, and was done so based on feedback from > users and third parties who were able to provide useful hints through > their own dealings with users and potential users. > > The original download area was confusing. We had links on the > homepages that pointed to source code and windows binaries. We had > multiple pages linking to related projects, and we had a download page > that linked into parts of our FTP site, as well as a largely unmanaged > list of third party sites. We regularly received emails asking > where/what people needed to download. > I agree that the current page is better. I (mistakenly) thought that the information form (the one that was/is not required) was presented on downloads of the packages listed in the community section. I'm sorry to have caused so much strife... I do believe that the current strategy was better, and with your recent clarification on upgrades/maintenace of the one-click installers, I'm in favor of pushing them. I wasn't aware of Josh's (Berkus) reasoning with regard to getting more "non core" stuff in the install, and I think that makes sense as well. I personally am not a fan of the commercial distributions being anything more than a simple download (i.e., I think that the form, though not required, isn't a good thing - from the community perspective), but I think I'm in the minority, so I'll shut up about it. In defense of myself, I don't think I ever intimated that any form asking for information is/was required.... Dave, on a more personal note. I applaud your initiative and all the work I am sure that it took to make sure everything was seamless and integrated as a whole. I think that it does make stuff easier to find, and will - overall- provide the community with a better experience. The applause goes to anyone that helped as well :-) thanks > The revised strategy included a number of ideas to improve matters: > > - *All* external download links should point to /download, except > where intentionally pointing to a specific package. > > - Browsing of the FTP area should be a last resort for the user, never > something we direct them to do. > > - All third-party products and add-ons etc. should be moved into the > new software catalogue. > > - All third party 'non-community-standard' PostgreSQL distributions > (e.g. Postgres Plus, BitNami, Bizgres) would be moved to a secondary > list under the main server downloads. > > - 'Community standard' PostgreSQL distributions would be given > top-most listing on the download page, categorised by operating > system. These packages come from postgresql.org and a variety of third > party sites. > > - Within each operating system category, downloads would be listed in > order of ease of use for the complete novice and then alphabetically. > This is because it was perceived that the majority of 'what do I > download' questions came from the real novices, for whom a one-click > installer is easier to understand than a long list of RPMs, DEBs or > ports, most of which they won't need. The more experienced users will > naturally choose the platform-native packages anyway, as that's what > they will be looking for. > > And guess what? It's worked. *All* the feedback I've received has > commented on how it's far, far easier to find the appropriate > downloads now, and since the changes were implemented, I don't think > I've seen a single 'what/where do I download' email. > > -- Chander Ganesan Open Technology Group, Inc. One Copley Parkway, Suite 210 Morrisville, NC 27560 919-463-0999/877-258-8987 http://www.otg-nc.com
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote: > Dave, on a more personal note. I applaud your initiative and all the work I > am sure that it took to make sure everything was seamless and integrated as > a whole. I think that it does make stuff easier to find, and will - > overall- provide the community with a better experience. The applause goes > to anyone that helped as well :-) Thank you Chander. Regards, Dave -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com