Re: Let's get the OpenSCG packages listed on download

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 04/26/2016 07:15 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>> - The logo linking to OpenSCG's site to offer PostgreSQL services is
>> the PostgreSQL logo, not the OpenSCG one, which is misleading.
>>
>
> Ugh, you are correct. The way that is presented is very poor. Scott, Jim?
> We shouldn't have:
>
> "Sponsor Services"
> PostgreSQL
>
> and have it go to your services. It needs to be worded better. Perhaps?
>
> Packages sponsored by OpenSCG services? Or something like that.
>
>
Agreed - we'll update that to be clearer.

> th distributions use the same non-OSS installer technology.
>>
>> So why do you make the assertion above? What am I missing?
>>
>>
> Well first, this isn't about EDB to me. I was going purely off what was
> presented which was the 100% open source. As a community we have long
> agreed that if an Open Source alternative exists, that is the one that gets
> promoted and it should.
>
> If OpenSCG isn't presenting the solution in the manner described in their
> announce that either needs to be fixed or, I agree... there is no reason to
> list them because we don't want to confuse users.
>
>
We weren't focused on the specific installer tech as OSS as all of the
packages and integrations and pre-req's for users being open source. No
ActiveState required. All extensions available in the open source version.
Command line update manager open source.

FYI, the (open source) command line update manager is actually much more
than that, and does the install and configuration. We are using Bitnami
mostly for the .zip file and graphic UI, but most of the setup, service
integration, etc is done by the command line tool, so if you download the
sandbox version (without graphical installer) you can still run the install
command to install and configure.