Re: Linux Downloads page change

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.

--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/
>