Re: Linux Downloads page change

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:39:54PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 1) A no-gui option
>> >> > > The bitrock installers do have this, but at times, the
>> technology
>> >> > > isn't
>> >> > > perfect. Many times, people want to just run a command and have it
>> >> > > install.
>> >> > > The idea with an RPM of these binaries is that we get the benefit
>> of
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > same binaries across installers, AND lower the barrier to entry by
>> >> > > making
>> >> > > rpm -ivh ... just work.
>> >> >
>> >> > No technology is perfect, but we have numerous users utilising text,
>> >> > silent and response file installations quite successfully, including
>> >> > all the additional post-copy steps the installers undertake. We also
>> >> > have an unpack mode which is much more like an RPM install in that it
>> >> > just lays down the binaries. Simply put, you can just run a command
>> >> > and have it install.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed. If the non-GUI mode of the Bitrock installers is broken,
>> please
>> >> report it and let's fix it. If it can't be fixed, maybe we need to use
>> >> another installer, but it is not clear what is broken. Are you saying
>> >> it is better for non-GUI installs because they don't need to supply a
>> >> flag for non-GUI mode? Shouldn't we just document the flag better?
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry I'm not being clear here (I've switched timezones just yesterday
>> ).
>> > I'm not saying that it's broken, just that, from a 'barriers'
>> perspective,
>> > many customers end up building their own server-only RPM. They need
>> > something that is consistent across the many disparate linux distro's
>> (and
>> > even just versions of the same distro) that they are running.
>> >
>> > Some people do it to distribute through their own repository, some just
>> > don't want to stay beholden to the linux distro's themselves. Others
>> just
>> > need a consistent directory structure across distributions so that their
>> > teams have one less thing to worry about. The community yum repository
>> and
>> > binaries are a great thing, and in shops where linux the distributions
>> are
>> > consistent and version-ing is well managed, I would recommend them every
>> > time. The generic RPM option let's us fill a gap between the two; when
>> it
>> > comes to Small-Mid enterprise, it's very hard to stay consistent across
>> all
>> > distributions all the time while still making budget and timelines. The
>> > generic RPM/DEB allows for that middle-ground and lowers barriers in
>> > mid-sized enterprises that haven't completely gotten their head around
>> all
>> > the different aspects of internal distribution.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The smaller download does make sense --- it is a leaner install.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if the OpenSCG text should more clearly state is doesn't
>> >> include any GUI componients.
>> >
>> >
>> > Patch attached.
>>
>> I noticed two quick things: according to the page, you provide RPMs
>> for RedHat and SuSE (per the logos - I assume Fedora is included in
>> the RedHat part), and DEBs for Ubuntu.
>>
>> Why do the patches suggest adding it to Debian (not listed) and to
>> "other"?
>>
>
> I'll update our site and get back to you.
>
>
>>
>> I also for the first time clicked one of those links. To me, the way
>> that those pages request a login and registratoin to download them is
>> completely unacceptable. Yes, I realize there is a "there's a download
>> link at the bottom if you don't want to" (or as you like to phrase it,
>> "feel anti-social", which is clearly designed to make people sign up).
>> But I don't think that's acceptable for something to be listed on our
>> primary download pages. I'm ok (but not with a big margin) with how
>> EnterpriseDB does it - which is that they deliver your download and
>> *then* suggest you register as well. (Actually, I see now that they
>> have stopped doing that completely and instead throw some marketing
>> and ads for their cloud product at you)
>>
>
> Okay, we'll talk about this internally, but I'm thinking that we'll
> probably kick the download off and then leave a register page up underneath.
>

It took a while, but we updated the downloads that are launched from:
http://www.openscg.com/se/postgresql/packages.jsp

Once you drill into a platform, it will launch the download, and leave the
registration page up underneath.

--Scott

>
> --Scottie
>
>
>>
>> I'd like to see that fixed for the developer bundles as well.
>
> --
>> Magnus Hagander
>> Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>>
>
>