Re: Download links

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On Saturday 30 August 2008 15:59:41 Dave Page wrote:
>> The ordering intentionally puts the easy to use, one size fits all
>> above the platform specific packaging. Experience tells us that the
>> people that have most trouble figuring out what to download tend to be
>> the ones for whom the one-click point and drool packages are the most
>> appropriate. The more experienced users are generally able to find the
>> 'exact-fit' packages for their distro.
>
> What is concerning me is that the one-click installer is essentially a
> proprietary product and it is put into the prominent spot PostgreSQL ->
> Download -> Linux -> first choice.

It's not proprietary - everything in it is open source, and 'as it
comes'. The fact that it is where it is, is the result of numerous
conversations amongst members of the web team, and even -core (bar
Marc) who agreed in Ottawa that it should be added alongside the
platform specific packages.

> At the very least, the whole thing should be moved to a
> community-hosted infrastructure

I originally wanted to host it on postgresql.org, but was talked out
of it by other members of the webteam who disagreed. A large part of
the reason was that most other packages do not come from
postgresql.org, including those from the yum repo for example.

> an open development model,

The only non-open aspect of it is my failure to publish the build
scripts in a timely fashion. I will try to find some time for that
early next week if it's important to you.

> and no company advertisement.
>
> (For related reasons, I think the company names on the download pages should
> be deleted altogether.)

They were added also following discussion, as credit for those people
and companies who give up their time and resources.

> Also, I would personally never recommend anyone using a non-distro packaged
> binary, which is why I am concerned that we are putting this into the
> prominent spot. There are good technical reasons for that recommendation.
> For example, if you install a nonpackaged version of libpq, none of the other
> packages available in your distro that depend on libpq will work. The
> explanation you give above is acknowledged but I don't believe it is
> accurate. The distro packaging should be the default even for the
> non-superguru user.
>

In an ideal Linux world I agree, but there is no way to get a
consistent and simple installation across different distros due the
variety of packaging systems in use and their maintainers unfortunate
habit of picking and choosing what to package, how to package it, and
when to package it. This is what confuses newbies and drives many
people away from choosing PostgreSQL as we have discovered from others
that I cannot name here.

You will note, that the description beside the one-click package makes
a point of stating that the problem you mention exists for precisely
this reason:

---
Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specific
packaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or Portage integration, please
use the packages below.
---

I'm happy to make reasonable adjustments to that wording if you would
care to suggest improvements.

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