| From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chander Ganesan <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Guido Barosio <gbarosio(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Duplicate Events (and other stuff).. |
| Date: | 2009-08-10 19:32:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4A8075E0.40702@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 19:50 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>>> I would say no to forks, but yes to alternate distros.
>> Where does Mammoth fall as it is Open Source?
>
> Is it a fork, or an add-on like Slony? If the latter, I'd say yes, it
> should be included as it's clearly centered around 'pure' PostgreSQL.
> If the former, then, well, no.
>
> I'm just one opinion though - others (including you) may disagree.
How about a separate section for forks whether Open Source (HadoopDB)
or not (EnterpriseDB) as well as whether closely related
ones (Postgres Plus) or distantly related ones (Netezza).
I think one of the neatest strengths of selling the use of
Postgres (over, say, MySQL or microsoft's) is the wide range
of forks that a company can grow into if they feel any
particular need down the road.
I wonder if our community website embraced the proprietary
forks more, people new to the project (say, CFOs) would be
quicker to see that this is mature high-end serious technology.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-08-10 19:47:36 | Re: Duplicate Events (and other stuff).. |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-08-10 19:11:34 | Re: Duplicate Events (and other stuff).. |