Thread: Some restructuring of the download section
Per discussions I've had with people for a long time now, I finally got around to making some changes to the structure of the download section last week, to make it a little bit less cluttered and confusing. And I think minus a few details they're about ready to go. And then I promptly forgot about posting it here... So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've pushed a preview version of it up at http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for me... I've pushed my development branch to github. It contains a lot of minor changes and back/forth changes, so the history is probably not very interested, but you can view the full diff to master at https://github.com/mhagander/pgweb/compare/master...downloadrefactor, or clone that github repo if you want to make some changes off it. The main difference for people to actually see are, other than generally trying to make it easier to read: * Add more distinct links in the navigation bar. The Download one becomes redundant, but it also makes it much easier to "get back" to the starting point * Remove the strange horizontal menu we used to select platform - it didn't correspond to any kind of standard way of doing webpage layout, and confused a lot of people * Introduce a more granular split between Linux distributions, to be able to target information more specifically - instead of a huge if/elseif/elseif block between which distro you're on. Results in more pages, but a lot more structured and easy to read pages. * Put much more actual information on the per-distribution/per-os pages. E.g. instead of "you can use yum", it has "how and why to use yum" (and similar for other distros) * Remove individual (and usually inconsistent) packager crediting - this should be credited on the main project (/community/contributors/ page) like all other contributors. * Update the snapshot download information which has been lacking love for a long time * In some pages, get rid of 200-char long rows and just fold them into normal rows (e.g. the windows download page). Generates a big diff, though... Constructive comments are most welcome ;) Also, I need help to update the details for operating systems/distros and install methods that I don't know myself. I'd appreciate it if someone who does could look at e.g. the RedHat pages and then construct similar pages for the following OSes (either send me the text, or just do a fork+pullreq on github): * FreeBSD (Palle has promised to work on this alrady) * OpenBSD (I suggest you wait until Palle is done with FreeBSD, since I suspect they will be very similar) * SuSE * Mac OS X (the Fink and Macports part - I think I have the rest covered by bugging people on IRC) * Solaris It's no worse than it is before, but it would be good to be able to improve the information on those pages as well. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste > between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've > pushed a preview version of it up at > http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, > password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for > me... Thanks for working on this - it looks good. > * Remove the strange horizontal menu we used to select platform - it > didn't correspond to any kind of standard way of doing webpage layout, > and confused a lot of people Better remove the other horizontal menu at the top of the page too then :-p (that's a joke, but seriously, I've never heard of anyone getting confused by that - and frankly if someone does get confused by a horizontal list, they probably stand zero chance of using PostgreSQL without getting confused). > * Introduce a more granular split between Linux distributions, to be > able to target information more specifically - instead of a huge > if/elseif/elseif block between which distro you're on. Results in more > pages, but a lot more structured and easy to read pages. The large bold warnings about the installers were added because they used to be listed at the top of the page, above the platform-specific packaging options (because they tended to confuse people less). It's yet to be seen if users will become confused again - we have the info they should need now, but I suspect that doesn't necessarily mean they'll read it before emailing us. In any case, I think those warnings should either be removed or made non-bold now. > * Update the snapshot download information which has been lacking love > for a long time Per the above for the platform packaging warning (though, if you just un-bold it, it should refer to the packages above, not below). > * Mac OS X (the Fink and Macports part - I think I have the rest > covered by bugging people on IRC) Postgres.app shouldn't be included on there (yet) for a number of reasons: - We have noone on the packagers list maintaining releases with the community schedule. - We haven't had any commitment to maintain releases in line with our support policy. - It's still a beta. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >> So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste >> between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've >> pushed a preview version of it up at >> http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, >> password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for >> me... > > Thanks for working on this - it looks good. > >> * Remove the strange horizontal menu we used to select platform - it >> didn't correspond to any kind of standard way of doing webpage layout, >> and confused a lot of people > > Better remove the other horizontal menu at the top of the page too then :-p > > (that's a joke, but seriously, I've never heard of anyone getting > confused by that - and frankly if someone does get confused by a > horizontal list, they probably stand zero chance of using PostgreSQL > without getting confused). Yeah, I realize that was a joke. So maybe my phrasing was bad. The way it was positioned as a horizontal menu *where it was*, and the way it looks, doesn't really conform to anything that people do elsewhere. If other sites use things like that *at all*, it's for links to places further down on the same page or such - certainly not for what's actually the most important links on the whole page... >> * Introduce a more granular split between Linux distributions, to be >> able to target information more specifically - instead of a huge >> if/elseif/elseif block between which distro you're on. Results in more >> pages, but a lot more structured and easy to read pages. > > The large bold warnings about the installers were added because they > used to be listed at the top of the page, above the platform-specific > packaging options (because they tended to confuse people less). It's > yet to be seen if users will become confused again - we have the info > they should need now, but I suspect that doesn't necessarily mean > they'll read it before emailing us. In any case, I think those > warnings should either be removed or made non-bold now. I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still correct. In fact, given the number of people I've run into who've had problems because of that, I'd rather leave them as bold as well. But I'll be happy to defer that decision to someone who's neither you nor me ;) >> * Update the snapshot download information which has been lacking love >> for a long time > > Per the above for the platform packaging warning (though, if you just > un-bold it, it should refer to the packages above, not below). Oh, nice one. Fixed. >> * Mac OS X (the Fink and Macports part - I think I have the rest >> covered by bugging people on IRC) > > Postgres.app shouldn't be included on there (yet) for a number of reasons: > > - We have noone on the packagers list maintaining releases with the > community schedule. > - We haven't had any commitment to maintain releases in line with our > support policy. > - It's still a beta. agreed. That was actually mostly put in there as an example of how it would look, and in the hope that they would finish it. And then I forgot about commenting it out :-) Also done now. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> The large bold warnings about the installers were added because they >> used to be listed at the top of the page, above the platform-specific >> packaging options (because they tended to confuse people less). It's >> yet to be seen if users will become confused again - we have the info >> they should need now, but I suspect that doesn't necessarily mean >> they'll read it before emailing us. In any case, I think those >> warnings should either be removed or made non-bold now. > > I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still correct. > > In fact, given the number of people I've run into who've had problems > because of that, I'd rather leave them as bold as well. Citations please? I don't recall ever hearing of people running into such problems. I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly obvious that a graphical installer isn't an RPM or DEB - and that being the case it seems like clutter on the page that is distracting from the more important text that's there and will achieve little except cause fewer people to actually read everything else. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 17:48 +0800, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Per discussions I've had with people for a long time now, I finally > got around to making some changes to the structure of the download > section last week, to make it a little bit less cluttered and > confusing. And I think minus a few details they're about ready to go. > And then I promptly forgot about posting it here... > > So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste > between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've > pushed a preview version of it up at > http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, > password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for > me... > > I've pushed my development branch to github. It contains a lot of > minor changes and back/forth changes, so the history is probably not > very interested, but you can view the full diff to master at > https://github.com/mhagander/pgweb/compare/master...downloadrefactor, > or clone that github repo if you want to make some changes off it. > > The main difference for people to actually see are, other than > generally trying to make it easier to read: > * Add more distinct links in the navigation bar. The Download one > becomes redundant, but it also makes it much easier to "get back" to > the starting point > * Remove the strange horizontal menu we used to select platform - it > didn't correspond to any kind of standard way of doing webpage layout, > and confused a lot of people > * Introduce a more granular split between Linux distributions, to be > able to target information more specifically - instead of a huge > if/elseif/elseif block between which distro you're on. Results in more > pages, but a lot more structured and easy to read pages. > * Put much more actual information on the per-distribution/per-os > pages. E.g. instead of "you can use yum", it has "how and why to use > yum" (and similar for other distros) > * Remove individual (and usually inconsistent) packager crediting - > this should be credited on the main project (/community/contributors/ > page) like all other contributors. > * Update the snapshot download information which has been lacking love > for a long time > * In some pages, get rid of 200-char long rows and just fold them into > normal rows (e.g. the windows download page). Generates a big diff, > though... > > Constructive comments are most welcome ;) > > Also, I need help to update the details for operating systems/distros > and install methods that I don't know myself. I'd appreciate it if > someone who does could look at e.g. the RedHat pages and then > construct similar pages for the following OSes (either send me the > text, or just do a fork+pullreq on github): > * FreeBSD (Palle has promised to work on this alrady) > * OpenBSD (I suggest you wait until Palle is done with FreeBSD, since > I suspect they will be very similar) > * SuSE > * Mac OS X (the Fink and Macports part - I think I have the rest > covered by bugging people on IRC) > * Solaris > > It's no worse than it is before, but it would be good to be able to > improve the information on those pages as well. > Seems good to me, though I would add PGXN on the "Additional Software" part (before pgFoundry). -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
[resending because I accidentally failed to copy the list] Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> The large bold warnings about the installers [...] should either >>> be removed or made non-bold now. >> >> I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still >> correct. > I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly obvious that a > graphical installer isn't an RPM or DEB I think that there are an awful lot of people capable of running PostgreSQL who don't understand Linux packaging systems. FWIW, at least half the tech support staff where I work would fail to assume that a downloaded graphical installer would not integrate the software in the same way that, say, the graphical "Package Manager" on Ubuntu or the graphical form of yast (on SUSE) does. I think the warning is appropriate. > and that being the case it seems like clutter on the page that is > distracting from the more important text that's there and will > achieve little except cause fewer people to actually read > everything else. I will agree that it should probably not be bold. When I pulled one of these pages up, it tended to be the first thing I read because it was the only bold item on the page -- my eye was drawn there right away. In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and easy way to do this. My experiences with the yum packages is that there are no clicks needed. I type the apt-get command or pick the package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. I think we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick one or the other. One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like PPA without defining them somewhere. How is someone not versed in Linux installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether they should consider using one? -Kevin
On Sunday, June 17, 2012, Kevin Grittner wrote:
In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option
as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and
easy way to do this. My experiences with the yum packages is that
there are no clicks needed. I type the apt-get command or pick the
package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a
running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and
which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. I think
we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick
one or the other.
(this is background info, not an argument against the proposed changes):
Well the whole point is that they are faster and easier to get started - one package contains server, docs, GUI etc, and following a few clicks everything is up and running. Personally I dislike the term 1-click installer as it's clearly inaccurate (it's more like 5 clicks), but that's the name that has become known and recognised.
The platform native packaging systems are marginally easier to update (StackBuilder will update the installers), but have proven in the past to confuse some users because it's hard to know what to install (though part of what Magnus has done aims to make that easier), and they all install software but don't do any of the setup for you - no initdb, no service setup etc.
The reason the original design was implemented, and the installers were written, is that this was a real problem that caused regular emails to webmaster@postgresql.org and other places. We reduced that to practically zero by putting the 'no-brainer' option at the top of the page.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2012, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> >> >> In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option >> as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and >> easy way to do this. My experiences with the yum packages is that >> there are no clicks needed. I type the apt-get command or pick the >> package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a >> running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and >> which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. I think >> we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick >> one or the other. > > > (this is background info, not an argument against the proposed changes): > > Well the whole point is that they are faster and easier to get started - one Well, you already know I disagree on this ;) But even in those cases that they *are* easier to get started with, it comes with a cost later on. > The platform native packaging systems are marginally easier to update > (StackBuilder will update the installers), but have proven in the past to > confuse some users because it's hard to know what to install (though part of > what Magnus has done aims to make that easier), and they all install > software but don't do any of the setup for you - no initdb, no service setup > etc. Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on Linux at least do service setup for you. > The reason the original design was implemented, and the installers were > written, is that this was a real problem that caused regular emails to > webmaster@postgresql.org and other places. We reduced that to practically > zero by putting the 'no-brainer' option at the top of the page. It's moved some of those to other lists of course, but yes, it certainly helped to cut down the number of peopl ewho had that problem. My hope with the redesign is to give them advice that's as easy to use, but produce a better result (=OS integration). -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>>> The large bold warnings about the installers [...] should either >>>> be removed or made non-bold now. >>> >>> I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still >>> correct. > >> I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly obvious that a >> graphical installer isn't an RPM or DEB > > I think that there are an awful lot of people capable of running > PostgreSQL who don't understand Linux packaging systems. FWIW, at > least half the tech support staff where I work would fail to assume > that a downloaded graphical installer would not integrate the > software in the same way that, say, the graphical "Package Manager" > on Ubuntu or the graphical form of yast (on SUSE) does. I think the > warning is appropriate. > >> and that being the case it seems like clutter on the page that is >> distracting from the more important text that's there and will >> achieve little except cause fewer people to actually read >> everything else. > > I will agree that it should probably not be bold. When I pulled one > of these pages up, it tended to be the first thing I read because it > was the only bold item on the page -- my eye was drawn there right > away. True. That didn't happen to me because it happens to be right at the edge of a page. Maybe make the "Note" part italic, and just leave the rest as normal font could work? > In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option > as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and > easy way to do this. My experiences with the yum packages is that > there are no clicks needed. I type the apt-get command or pick the Oooh.. How can I get apt-get to work with yum? ;) (Sorry, couldn't help it) > package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a > running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and > which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. I think > we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick > one or the other. Such as "This repository will integrate with your normal systems and patch management, and provide automatic updates for all supported versions of PostgreSQL throughout the support lifetime of PostgreSQL.", which is there? ;) Any suggestions for a wording that would be better? > One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like PPA > without defining them somewhere. How is someone not versed in Linux > installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether they > should consider using one? Well, I'd rather avoid using "Personal Package Archive", because it sounds scary ;) As in it sounds like something that's not supported, to those who don't know what it is. (And frankly, I think that's a big mistake on Ubuntu's part - that it's still Personal Package Archive even if it's stuff that comes from a team, for example. But there's nothing *we* can do about that.) But I guess we could add a simple "(Personal Package Archive)" after the term the first time, would that satisfy as a definition? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >>> The large bold warnings about the installers were added because they >>> used to be listed at the top of the page, above the platform-specific >>> packaging options (because they tended to confuse people less). It's >>> yet to be seen if users will become confused again - we have the info >>> they should need now, but I suspect that doesn't necessarily mean >>> they'll read it before emailing us. In any case, I think those >>> warnings should either be removed or made non-bold now. >> >> I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still correct. >> >> In fact, given the number of people I've run into who've had problems >> because of that, I'd rather leave them as bold as well. > > Citations please? I don't recall ever hearing of people running into > such problems. I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly As I've said previously, it's mainly been from people who aren't on our lists, so I can't easily point there. I know it's up on the lists every now and then as well, but it's getting too late in the evening to spend time searching for that. I've heard it from customers. I've heard it from people I've met at conferences. I've heard it in IRC channels. I've heard it in usergroups. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> The platform native packaging systems are marginally easier to update >> (StackBuilder will update the installers), but have proven in the past to >> confuse some users because it's hard to know what to install (though part of >> what Magnus has done aims to make that easier), and they all install >> software but don't do any of the setup for you - no initdb, no service setup >> etc. > > Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages > certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on > Linux at least do service setup for you. Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm fairly certain it didn't in the past. RPMs on the other hand, do not. You have to do something like: yum install postgresql-server service postgresql initdb chkconfig postgresql on service postgresql start (tested on CentOS 6.2). -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The large bold warnings about the installers were added because they >>>> used to be listed at the top of the page, above the platform-specific >>>> packaging options (because they tended to confuse people less). It's >>>> yet to be seen if users will become confused again - we have the info >>>> they should need now, but I suspect that doesn't necessarily mean >>>> they'll read it before emailing us. In any case, I think those >>>> warnings should either be removed or made non-bold now. >>> >>> I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still correct. >>> >>> In fact, given the number of people I've run into who've had problems >>> because of that, I'd rather leave them as bold as well. >> >> Citations please? I don't recall ever hearing of people running into >> such problems. I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly > > As I've said previously, it's mainly been from people who aren't on > our lists, so I can't easily point there. I know it's up on the lists > every now and then as well, but it's getting too late in the evening > to spend time searching for that. > > I've heard it from customers. I've heard it from people I've met at > conferences. I've heard it in IRC channels. I've heard it in > usergroups. So why don't I hear it? I get enough private emails from users with other questions/comments - presumably as my name is next to the download link. Regardless though - I'm fine with leaving it there, or removing it. I would rather remove it to simplify the text, but most importantly don't think it should be bold, for exactly the reason Kevin gave. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >>> Citations please? I don't recall ever hearing of people running into >>> such problems. I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly >> >> As I've said previously, it's mainly been from people who aren't on >> our lists, so I can't easily point there. I know it's up on the lists >> every now and then as well, but it's getting too late in the evening >> to spend time searching for that. >> >> I've heard it from customers. I've heard it from people I've met at >> conferences. I've heard it in IRC channels. I've heard it in >> usergroups. One other thought - presumably the people telling you this are not reading the bold text that's there at the moment? Which probably means those people aren't reading the rest of what's there either, so there's likely not much we can do to help them. In other words, maybe they aren't the best people to consider when we think about anything other than simplifying those pages. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Citations please? I don't recall ever hearing of people running into >>>> such problems. I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly >>> >>> As I've said previously, it's mainly been from people who aren't on >>> our lists, so I can't easily point there. I know it's up on the lists >>> every now and then as well, but it's getting too late in the evening >>> to spend time searching for that. >>> >>> I've heard it from customers. I've heard it from people I've met at >>> conferences. I've heard it in IRC channels. I've heard it in >>> usergroups. > > One other thought - presumably the people telling you this are not > reading the bold text that's there at the moment? Which probably means > those people aren't reading the rest of what's there either, so > there's likely not much we can do to help them. Well, it's certainly gone down since the warning was added :-) A number of them had just done it, found the problem, fixed it themselves and then took a chance to report it once they ran into someone who actually works on the site... > In other words, maybe they aren't the best people to consider when we > think about anything other than simplifying those pages. That's a pretty good point though, that still holds at least partially :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: > True. That didn't happen to me because it happens to be right at > the edge of a page. For me that depends on the page. With RedHat I have to scroll down to see it. With SuSE it slaps me right upside the head by sitting right in the middle of the page when it comes up. > Maybe make the "Note" part italic, and just leave the rest as > normal font could work? That might be about right. >> I think we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would >> want to pick one or the other. > > Such as "This repository will integrate with your normal systems > and patch management, and provide automatic updates for all > supported versions of PostgreSQL throughout the support lifetime of > PostgreSQL.", which is there? ;) Only on the RedHat page. There is different language, perhaps even stronger, on the "Other Linux" page. But the other pages don't have anything similar, and they probably should. > Any suggestions for a wording that would be better? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the one-click installer and the various options (GUI and otherwise) on other OS's. I pretty much know my way around the Synaptic Package Manager and apt-get on Ubuntu, and yast and zypper on SuSE. And, of course, I rarely use any of those for PostgreSQL because I'm generally building from source. The one time I remember choosing the postgresql-8.4 package in Ubuntu, I had a running server cluster on my workstation in about 30 seconds without doing anything further. >> One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like >> PPA without defining them somewhere. How is someone not versed in >> Linux installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether >> they should consider using one? > > Well, I'd rather avoid using "Personal Package Archive", because it > sounds scary ;) As in it sounds like something that's not > supported, to those who don't know what it is. (And frankly, I > think that's a big mistake on Ubuntu's part - that it's still > Personal Package Archive even if it's stuff that comes from a team, > for example. But there's nothing *we* can do about that.) Yeah, that's a fair point, but I think that people who would be scared by that would be even more scared by initials which aren't defined, would do a web search to find out what it means, and still get to the "Personal Package Archive" phrase. Having had to search for the phrase might not boost confidence at that point. > But I guess we could add a simple "(Personal Package Archive)" > after the term the first time, would that satisfy as a definition? I'm not sure what makes the most sense -- it should not be repeated a lot or stressed, but neither should it be too hard to find if someone wants to do so. Is a footnote an option? Maybe a short note with it to describe what that really means, so as to boost confidence? -Kevin
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages
>> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on
>> Linux at least do service setup for you.
> Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian
> (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm
> fairly certain it didn't in the past.
> RPMs on the other hand, do not.
FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting
servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that
an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of
servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely.
I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although
it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install
scenarios. It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you
know that the user explicitly requested this specific package.
regards, tom lane
Magnus, Wow, much more comprehensible. I'm sure I'll find some nits later, but it's so much easier to understand now that it's hard to find anything worth adjusting. Except ... http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/snapshots/ For Snapshots page, I think the Source Code text block should be the top section, instead of the bottom, since the most updated snapshots are usually source. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Dave, Magnus, I do think we should keep the warning about One-Click being an alternative to RPM/Deb/Whatever and not complimentary to it. However, I don't think it needs to be Bold. Cynically, I don't think people will actually read the warning, but when I get complaints about it, I like to point out that it's there. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages > >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on > >> Linux at least do service setup for you. > > > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian > > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm > > fairly certain it didn't in the past. > > RPMs on the other hand, do not. > > FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting > servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that > an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of > servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely. > > I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although > it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install > scenarios. It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you > know that the user explicitly requested this specific package. > When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I guess there are both pros and cons in both methods. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
Looks good and *is* much more readable than the current version on the site. I would suggest (in a bid to make even more readable) that we indent the paragraphs so that its clear under which heading the content is. For instance I find the section on Binary Distributions a lot easier to read because of the indentation introduced by the list. just my 2c - Martin - On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Per discussions I've had with people for a long time now, I finally > got around to making some changes to the structure of the download > section last week, to make it a little bit less cluttered and > confusing. And I think minus a few details they're about ready to go. > And then I promptly forgot about posting it here... > > So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste > between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've > pushed a preview version of it up at > http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, > password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for > me... > > I've pushed my development branch to github. It contains a lot of > minor changes and back/forth changes, so the history is probably not > very interested, but you can view the full diff to master at > https://github.com/mhagander/pgweb/compare/master...downloadrefactor, > or clone that github repo if you want to make some changes off it. > > The main difference for people to actually see are, other than > generally trying to make it easier to read: > * Add more distinct links in the navigation bar. The Download one > becomes redundant, but it also makes it much easier to "get back" to > the starting point > * Remove the strange horizontal menu we used to select platform - it > didn't correspond to any kind of standard way of doing webpage layout, > and confused a lot of people > * Introduce a more granular split between Linux distributions, to be > able to target information more specifically - instead of a huge > if/elseif/elseif block between which distro you're on. Results in more > pages, but a lot more structured and easy to read pages. > * Put much more actual information on the per-distribution/per-os > pages. E.g. instead of "you can use yum", it has "how and why to use > yum" (and similar for other distros) > * Remove individual (and usually inconsistent) packager crediting - > this should be credited on the main project (/community/contributors/ > page) like all other contributors. > * Update the snapshot download information which has been lacking love > for a long time > * In some pages, get rid of 200-char long rows and just fold them into > normal rows (e.g. the windows download page). Generates a big diff, > though... > > Constructive comments are most welcome ;) > > Also, I need help to update the details for operating systems/distros > and install methods that I don't know myself. I'd appreciate it if > someone who does could look at e.g. the RedHat pages and then > construct similar pages for the following OSes (either send me the > text, or just do a fork+pullreq on github): > * FreeBSD (Palle has promised to work on this alrady) > * OpenBSD (I suggest you wait until Palle is done with FreeBSD, since > I suspect they will be very similar) > * SuSE > * Mac OS X (the Fink and Macports part - I think I have the rest > covered by bugging people on IRC) > * Solaris > > It's no worse than it is before, but it would be good to be able to > improve the information on those pages as well. > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ > > -- > Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Kevin Grittner wrote: > >> True. That didn't happen to me because it happens to be right at >> the edge of a page. > > For me that depends on the page. With RedHat I have to scroll down > to see it. With SuSE it slaps me right upside the head by sitting > right in the middle of the page when it comes up. That explains it - I've been looking mianly at the redhat page to view things :) >> Maybe make the "Note" part italic, and just leave the rest as >> normal font could work? > > That might be about right. Ok, I've tried that and pushed it. >>> I think we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would >>> want to pick one or the other. >> >> Such as "This repository will integrate with your normal systems >> and patch management, and provide automatic updates for all >> supported versions of PostgreSQL throughout the support lifetime of >> PostgreSQL.", which is there? ;) > > Only on the RedHat page. There is different language, perhaps even > stronger, on the "Other Linux" page. But the other pages don't have > anything similar, and they probably should. Yeah I'll add it to my list to get something like that in. >> Any suggestions for a wording that would be better? > > I'm afraid I don't know enough about the one-click installer and the > various options (GUI and otherwise) on other OS's. I pretty much > know my way around the Synaptic Package Manager and apt-get on > Ubuntu, and yast and zypper on SuSE. And, of course, I rarely use > any of those for PostgreSQL because I'm generally building from > source. The one time I remember choosing the postgresql-8.4 package > in Ubuntu, I had a running server cluster on my workstation in about > 30 seconds without doing anything further. Yeah, that is one of the many advantages :) >>> One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like >>> PPA without defining them somewhere. How is someone not versed in >>> Linux installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether >>> they should consider using one? >> >> Well, I'd rather avoid using "Personal Package Archive", because it >> sounds scary ;) As in it sounds like something that's not >> supported, to those who don't know what it is. (And frankly, I >> think that's a big mistake on Ubuntu's part - that it's still >> Personal Package Archive even if it's stuff that comes from a team, >> for example. But there's nothing *we* can do about that.) > > Yeah, that's a fair point, but I think that people who would be > scared by that would be even more scared by initials which aren't > defined, would do a web search to find out what it means, and still > get to the "Personal Package Archive" phrase. Having had to search > for the phrase might not boost confidence at that point. Hmm. True. Ok, I've added it for now in parenthesis. >> But I guess we could add a simple "(Personal Package Archive)" >> after the term the first time, would that satisfy as a definition? > > I'm not sure what makes the most sense -- it should not be repeated a > lot or stressed, but neither should it be too hard to find if someone > wants to do so. Is a footnote an option? Maybe a short note with it > to describe what that really means, so as to boost confidence? Yeah - I tried something like that - hopefully it looks ok? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages >> >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on >> >> Linux at least do service setup for you. >> >> > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian >> > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm >> > fairly certain it didn't in the past. >> > RPMs on the other hand, do not. >> >> FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting >> servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that >> an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of >> servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely. >> >> I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although >> it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install >> scenarios. It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you >> know that the user explicitly requested this specific package. >> > > When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will > install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much > prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I > guess there are both pros and cons in both methods. Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that specific platform. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Martin Atukunda <matlads@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks good and *is* much more readable than the current version on the site. > > I would suggest (in a bid to make even more readable) that we indent > the paragraphs so that its clear under which heading the content is. > > For instance I find the section on Binary Distributions a lot easier > to read because of the indentation introduced by the list. Hi! That might well be a good idea, but it's "out of scope" for this patch. We're not going to use a different layout for just these pages, we're using the standard stylesheets from the website. Unfortunately they are a little bit unclear on exafctly these things. I believe it's already on the TODO list for whenever we do the next website style update, to get that more clear. But thanks for the suggestion anyway! -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 17/06 17.48, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Also, I need help to update the details for operating systems/distros > and install methods that I don't know myself. I'd appreciate it if > someone who does could look at e.g. the RedHat pages and then > construct similar pages for the following OSes (either send me the > text, or just do a fork+pullreq on github): OK one comment about the details for Solaris. I can't easily access non-web stuff from within the firewall, but it's just one small change: I'd like to remove OpenSolaris form the list of "Solarises" mentioned; I replaced that with Solaris 11 several minor versions ago, so Solaris 10 and 11 will be the platforms packaged for in the foreseeable future. - Bjorn (Solaris tar ball builder)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:44:24 +0800, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Guillaume Lelarge > <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander >>> > <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages >>> >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on >>> >> Linux at least do service setup for you. >>> >>> > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian >>> > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm >>> > fairly certain it didn't in the past. >>> > RPMs on the other hand, do not. >>> >>> FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting >>> servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that >>> an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of >>> servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely. >>> >>> I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although >>> it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install >>> scenarios. It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you >>> know that the user explicitly requested this specific package. >>> >> >> When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will >> install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much >> prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I >> guess there are both pros and cons in both methods. > > Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should > add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that > specific platform. I'm not sure this is really our responsibility. The package maintainer should have a webpage explaining how his packages work. -- Guillaumehttp://www.postgresql.frhttp://dalibo.com
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > >> Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should >> add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that >> specific platform. > > I'm not sure this is really our responsibility. The package maintainer > should have a webpage explaining how his packages work. It is our responsibility to some extent (unfortunately), and is precisely what's driven this and previous designs of these pages. We get too many confused users emailing us if it's not crystal clear how they should install and setup binary packages (that's why the installers were at the top of the page; they made it extremely simple to get up and running for those that didn't bother to read past the first couple of lines of text). -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012, Bjorn Munch wrote:
You can browse the files on githjub if you want ;) In theory, you can even edit them from a webbrowser I think - I've never tried that myself though...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 17/06 17.48, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> Also, I need help to update the details for operating systems/distros
> and install methods that I don't know myself. I'd appreciate it if
> someone who does could look at e.g. the RedHat pages and then
> construct similar pages for the following OSes (either send me the
> text, or just do a fork+pullreq on github):
OK one comment about the details for Solaris. I can't easily access
non-web stuff from within the firewall, but it's just one small
change:
You can browse the files on githjub if you want ;) In theory, you can even edit them from a webbrowser I think - I've never tried that myself though...
I'd like to remove OpenSolaris form the list of "Solarises" mentioned;
I replaced that with Solaris 11 several minor versions ago, so Solaris
10 and 11 will be the platforms packaged for in the foreseeable
future.
ok, that's easy enough - changed in my local copy.
Should we perhaps extract some of the information from the README file and put it on this webpage instead, to make it more in line with the other pages? (Note that I say that without having actually looked at the README file since I'm on a non-wifi flight - so if the information corresponding to the stuff we have for other platforms isn't in the README file, perhaps we can write at least some of that?)
//Magnus
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:44:24 +0800, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander
>>> > <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages
>>> >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on
>>> >> Linux at least do service setup for you.
>>>
>>> > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on
Debian
>>> > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm
>>> > fairly certain it didn't in the past.
>>> > RPMs on the other hand, do not.
>>>
>>> FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against
starting
>>> servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is
that
>>> an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of
>>> servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although
>>> it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install
>>> scenarios. It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you
>>> know that the user explicitly requested this specific package.
>>>
>>
>> When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will
>> install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much
>> prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway,
I
>> guess there are both pros and cons in both methods.
>
> Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should
> add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that
> specific platform.
I'm not sure this is really our responsibility. The package maintainer
should have a webpage explaining how his packages work.
One of the main reasons for this change is that it *is* our responsibility. People come to us to get PostgreSQL. If we can't tell them how to install it, they turn away. This is one of the reasons why people end up using the oneclicks even in cases where it's not a good idea - because we do tell them how to do that ("click here, then follow the instructions").
But it is also information that we can, relatively easy, provide for the end user, that is very valuable to those who aren't experienced in the platform.
//Magnus
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:48:38PM +0800, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Per discussions I've had with people for a long time now, I finally > got around to making some changes to the structure of the download > section last week, to make it a little bit less cluttered and > confusing. And I think minus a few details they're about ready to go. > And then I promptly forgot about posting it here... > > So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste > between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've > pushed a preview version of it up at > http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, > password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for > me... > > I've pushed my development branch to github. It contains a lot of > minor changes and back/forth changes, so the history is probably not > very interested, but you can view the full diff to master at > https://github.com/mhagander/pgweb/compare/master...downloadrefactor, > or clone that github repo if you want to make some changes off it. > > The main difference for people to actually see are, other than > generally trying to make it easier to read: > * Add more distinct links in the navigation bar. The Download one > becomes redundant, but it also makes it much easier to "get back" to > the starting point > * Remove the strange horizontal menu we used to select platform - it > didn't correspond to any kind of standard way of doing webpage layout, > and confused a lot of people > * Introduce a more granular split between Linux distributions, to be > able to target information more specifically - instead of a huge > if/elseif/elseif block between which distro you're on. Results in more > pages, but a lot more structured and easy to read pages. > * Put much more actual information on the per-distribution/per-os > pages. E.g. instead of "you can use yum", it has "how and why to use > yum" (and similar for other distros) > * Remove individual (and usually inconsistent) packager crediting - > this should be credited on the main project (/community/contributors/ > page) like all other contributors. > * Update the snapshot download information which has been lacking love > for a long time > * In some pages, get rid of 200-char long rows and just fold them into > normal rows (e.g. the windows download page). Generates a big diff, > though... > > Constructive comments are most welcome ;) > > Also, I need help to update the details for operating systems/distros > and install methods that I don't know myself. I'd appreciate it if > someone who does could look at e.g. the RedHat pages and then > construct similar pages for the following OSes (either send me the > text, or just do a fork+pullreq on github): > * FreeBSD (Palle has promised to work on this alrady) > * OpenBSD (I suggest you wait until Palle is done with FreeBSD, since > I suspect they will be very similar) > * SuSE > * Mac OS X (the Fink and Macports part - I think I have the rest > covered by bugging people on IRC) > * Solaris > > It's no worse than it is before, but it would be good to be able to > improve the information on those pages as well. Hi, The new page have a better look and i think that it's more readable. Regards, -- Pierre-Emmanuel André <pea at raveland.org> GPG key: 0x7AE329DC
Hi all, An aside to this discussion - is there anywhere online where one can see the new version of the website that you're discussing? - or do you have to have a development environment installed locally? Thanks, Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland rod@iol.ie
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: > Hi all, > > An aside to this discussion - is there anywhere online where one can see > the new version of the website that you're discussing? - or do you have > to have a development environment installed locally? that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it: -- So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've pushed a preview version of it up at http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, password foobar - to make sure google doesn't end up crawling it for me... -- -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 20/06/2012 11:51, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> An aside to this discussion - is there anywhere online where one can see >> the new version of the website that you're discussing? - or do you have >> to have a development environment installed locally? > > that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it: > > -- > So, important things first. Since it contains a lot of cut/paste > between different places the diff can be a bit hard to read. So I've > pushed a preview version of it up at > http://young-window-5672.herokuapp.com/download/. Username is webtest, Thanks Magnus - I missed the first one, and only got interested recently. Ray. -- Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland rod@iol.ie
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> An aside to this discussion - is there anywhere online where one can see >> the new version of the website that you're discussing? - or do you have >> to have a development environment installed locally? > > that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it: Since there have been no further comments for a while, I've clened it up with the latest round of comments, and pushed it to the website now. There's still work to be done - I'm still waiting for the updated info from the different BSDs for example, but that's info we don't have to day anyway, so it shouldn't stand in the way of improving the other parts. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Ah, sorry about the sparse BSD info, I ran out of time. I on vacation now for a while, but will try to find some time toupdate the info within the next couple of weeks. No computer access now for ten days... Palle 1 jul 2012 kl. 14:31 skrev Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Raymond O'Donnell <rod@iol.ie> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> An aside to this discussion - is there anywhere online where one can see >>> the new version of the website that you're discussing? - or do you have >>> to have a development environment installed locally? >> >> that was in the first post, but reposting here for thsoe who missed it: > > Since there have been no further comments for a while, I've clened it > up with the latest round of comments, and pushed it to the website > now. > > There's still work to be done - I'm still waiting for the updated info > from the different BSDs for example, but that's info we don't have to > day anyway, so it shouldn't stand in the way of improving the other > parts. > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 04:27:59PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2012, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > > In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option > as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and > easy way to do this. My experiences with the yum packages is that > there are no clicks needed. I type the apt-get command or pick the > package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a > running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and > which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. I think > we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick > one or the other. > > > (this is background info, not an argument against the proposed changes): > > Well the whole point is that they are faster and easier to get started - one > package contains server, docs, GUI etc, and following a few clicks everything > is up and running. Personally I dislike the term 1-click installer as it's > clearly inaccurate (it's more like 5 clicks), but that's the name that has > become known and recognised. FYI, I use the term "click-through installers". -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +