[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
> > Simply saying "MySQL has better marketing" isn't enough. It's too
> > simple an answer and obscures some issues that should probably be
> > addressed.
>
> I think it /is/ a significant factor, the point being that the MySQL company
> has been qui
> You can't sell into the "ISP appliance market" until there's something as
> ubiquitous as "PHPMyAdmin" for PostgreSQL. And note that the "ISP
appliance
> market" only cares about this in a very indirect way. They don't actually
use
> the database; their /customers/ do. And their customers are
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
> > I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
> >
> > PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
> > *dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call it a database. I
> > have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years
Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
> I do NOT like hearing about MySQL in this (these) list(s).
>
> PostgreSQL is not in the same category with MySQL. MySQL is for
> *dummies*, not database admins. I do not even call it a database. I
> have never forgotten my data loss 2,5 years ago; when I used MySQL for
> ju
Hi,
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 15:31, Igor Georgiev wrote:
> In HQ they choose windows nt (i don't comment how "smart" is this decision),
> pay a lot of money to mr.Gates and now what - we say PostgreSQL is great ,
> but ..
> ( and i have personal contacts with their sysadmins i don't believe the
- Original Message -
From: "Devrim GÜNDÜZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PostgreSQL-development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> Also, I have something to sa
Hi,
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 13:26, mlw wrote:
> MySQL is an appalling database, but people use it, a lot! Why? Because
> they really market it. They push it. They craft deceptive benchmarks
> which show it is better. PostgreSQL doesn't even need to be deceptive.
>
> Furthermore, I think it woul
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
development group and, to some exten
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Iavor Raytchev wrote:
I actually do not understand why is the whole cry - why not somebody who
has REALLY the marketing in his/her heart - does not make an open source
amazingly beautiful and powerful web site. You do not have to ask Bruce
for that. You get BRICOLAGE -
Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> I actually do not understand why is the whole cry - why not somebody who
> has REALLY the marketing in his/her heart - does not make an open source
> amazingly beautiful and powerful web site. You do not have to ask Bruce
> for that. You get BRICOLAGE - it is free, and it
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Marc G. Fournier writes:
It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
development group
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > First off, I'd like to ask everyone to CUT IT OUT WITH THE $^*&^@** FLAMING,
> > ALREADY! People are *attacking* each other instead of disagreeing.
>
> Amen. This was first time 'round for the advocacy group, and it's not
> surprisi
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, I'd like to ask everyone to CUT IT OUT WITH THE $^*&^@** FLAMING,
> ALREADY! People are *attacking* each other instead of disagreeing.
Amen. This was first time 'round for the advocacy group, and it's not
surprising that there are some thing
Peter, Robert, Jason, Vince, Justin, et al.:
First off, I'd like to ask everyone to CUT IT OUT WITH THE $^*&^@** FLAMING,
ALREADY! People are *attacking* each other instead of disagreeing.
Several posters seem to be taking to opportunity to say everything in the
most insulting way possible,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Press release:
- Supports data in many international characters sets (UNICODE, EUC_JP,
EUC_CN, EUC_KR, JOHAB, EUC_TW, ISO 8859-1 ECMA-94, KOI8, WIN1256, etc...)
That is just plain wrong. Support for various character sets is years
old.
Sure is. Noti
s'alright, the 'fiefdoms' are about to be nuked :)
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 03:28, Dave Page wrote:
> > www is a closed group consisting of a few of us who actually do the work
> > on the sites.
>
> This is one of the primary reasons the sites are so fractu
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > >
> > > > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> > > > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Thomas O'Connell wrote:
> I was surprised, for instance, to receive a non-list email announcing
> the release of the software but then to have to wait for days actually
> to see it show up on the official (or even the advocacy) website in a
> news item. Even now it is not liste
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> I tend to agree with Peter. Not that we don't need a marketing
> presence; we do (I think Great Bridge's marketing efforts are sorely
> missed). But the point he is making is that the pgsql mailing lists go
> to people who are generally unimpressed by market
Peter,
> > I can definitely understand someone not wanting to *participate* in
> > marketing/advocacy of PostgreSQL. However, your being opposed to
> > promoting PostgreSQL as an organized activity *at all* baffles me. How
> > can you be against promoting PostgreSQL?
>
> I'm not against promot
Josh Berkus writes:
> I can definitely understand someone not wanting to *participate* in
> marketing/advocacy of PostgreSQL. However, your being opposed to
> promoting PostgreSQL as an organized activity *at all* baffles me. How
> can you be against promoting PostgreSQL?
I'm not against promot
Jason Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Compare the 7.3 release notes, written for the most part by Bruce
>> Momjian and revised by a couple of other developers, to the "press
>> release", written by people who were obviously ill-informed.
> So does
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Treat writes:
>
> > I think we've already shown why it doesn't hurt to market to the
> > converted. I'll add that if you compare the 7.2 press release with the
> > 7.3 press release, you'll see none of the technical content was removed.
>
> C
On Monday 09 December 2002 12:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Compare the 7.3 release notes, written for the most part by Bruce
> Momjian and revised by a couple of other developers, to the "press
> release", written by people who were obviously ill-informed.
If people want to see the details, let t
Robert Treat writes:
> I think we've already shown why it doesn't hurt to market to the
> converted. I'll add that if you compare the 7.2 press release with the
> 7.3 press release, you'll see none of the technical content was removed.
Compare the 7.3 release notes, written for the most part by B
Vince,
> Here are my main problems with it.
>
> 1) They're marketing to those that are already sold on it.
First off ... not "they", "you". I'm a member of Advocacy; so are
Robert, Justin, Neil, Marc, Bruce and several other members of this
list. The advocacy group is not some privately spons
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) They're marketing to those that are already sold on it.
I think the upshot of the prior discussion was that the outside press
release shouldn't have been used as the release announcement for the
existing mailing lists. Fine, they made a one-time mi
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:29:55 -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> But once Postgres has been packaged, we need to have a group making a
>> loud enough noise to get the world to pay attention. I'm not asking
>> everyone on this list to participate, but I am
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Josh Berkus wrote:
> But once Postgres has been packaged, we need to have a group making a
> loud enough noise to get the world to pay attention. I'm not asking
> everyone on this list to participate, but I am asking everyone on this
> list to recognize the utility of the eff
On 9 Dec 2002 at 1:20, Kevin Brown wrote:
> 2. They need 24x7 support, and are convinced that they'll get better
> support for Oracle or DB2 than anything else.
I have experienced what oracle support means for 24x7. I wouldn't even wish
that penalty for my worst enemy.
I can tell a story a
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
>
> > Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
> > >>assault from their clients to use oracle or db2. Technically
Hi Tommi,
Tommi Maekitalo wrote:
Hi,
there are lots of sites talking about postgresql. But if someone hear about
postgresql he sure tries www.postgresql.org. There he just get a list of
mirrors. Not really a good start. But worse: there is no links to gborg,
advocacy, techdocs, ... Advocacy
Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2002 05:22 schrieb Lamar Owen:
> [cc: list trimmed]
>
> On Wednesday 04 December 2002 22:52, Philip Warner wrote:
> > At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > >Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> >
> > What are the consequences
Vince, Peter:
I can definitely understand someone not wanting to *participate* in
marketing/advocacy of PostgreSQL. However, your being opposed to
promoting PostgreSQL as an organized activity *at all* baffles me. How
can you be against promoting PostgreSQL? Don't you want poeple to use
your c
On Sunday 08 December 2002 11:32 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Exactly, and pgsql-www is the wrong goddam list! I've told you over
> and over again. pgsql-www is the list that the group leaders use to
> collaborate.
And a fine job of collaboration you're doing *obviously*
> Over and over again
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 07 December 2002 11:10 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 03:28, Dave Page wrote:
> > > > www is a closed group consisting of a few of us who actually do the
> > > > work on the sites.
On Saturday 07 December 2002 11:10 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 03:28, Dave Page wrote:
> > > www is a closed group consisting of a few of us who actually do the
> > > work on the sites.
> >
> > This is one of the primary reasons the site
On Sunday 08 December 2002 06:14 pm, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:27, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > > > If something is familiar, it feels safe. We need to make PostgreSQL
> > > > familiar. That'
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> If we want people to use PostgreSQL in preference to anything else, we
> have to make it known. That is marketing. If we believe we have a good
> product we need to say so and say why and how it's better, cheaper and
> purer than anything else. If there's no good marketi
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > That's what I thought. You have no argument so your just typing.
>
> Hi Vince,
>
> Was more hoping you'd care to share your basis for stating Robert's
> employers clients wanted a "commercial database", after he mentioned
>
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
That's what I thought. You have no argument so your just typing.
Hi Vince,
Was more hoping you'd care to share your basis for stating Robert's
employers clients wanted a "commercial database", after he mentioned
specifically DB2 and Oracle. Knowing one of the obviou
On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:27, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> > > If something is familiar, it feels safe. We need to make PostgreSQL
> > > familiar. That's why we need marketing.
> >
> > Then why wasn't mysql in the list?
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:27, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > If something is familiar, it feels safe. We need to make PostgreSQL
> > familiar. That's why we need marketing.
>
> Then why wasn't mysql in the list? It's familiar.
To PHBs?
MySQL doesn't have any
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >>
> >>>Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> >>>
> >>>"they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> >>>
>
On 8 Dec 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 20:52, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > Why do you say that?
> >
> > Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> >
> > "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> >
> > Last I looked neither Oracle or
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
"they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
happen
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
> >
> > "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
> >
> > Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> > happen to b
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 20:52, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
>
> "they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
>
> Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
> happen
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
Because of this taken from the above quoted text:
"they were under constant assault from their clients to use oracle or db2"
Last I looked neither Oracle or DB2 were open source, but they both just
happen to be commercial and I don't see mysql mentioned.
And ?
Regar
On 7 Dec 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > What too many people fail to realize is that in a commercial environment
> > many companies want another company to point the finger at in case of
> > disaster. Sybase failed, or HP failed, or IBM failed, or Microsoft
> > failed. They feel they can do somet
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
> >>assault from their clients to use oracle or db2. Technically there was no
> >>reason to switch, but
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
> > >
> > > BTW, we do coordinate with the Website development group
> >
> > When did that happen then? I think I must have blinked :-)
>
> Marc and Justin are periodically keeping the Advocacy group informed
> of progress on wwwdevel, and we were
On 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 03:28, Dave Page wrote:
> > www is a closed group consisting of a few of us who actually do the work
> > on the sites.
>
> This is one of the primary reasons the sites are so fractured. We have 4
> different mailing lists for website devel
> What too many people fail to realize is that in a commercial environment
> many companies want another company to point the finger at in case of
> disaster. Sybase failed, or HP failed, or IBM failed, or Microsoft
> failed. They feel they can do something about that. If they lose a
> few mill
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Brian Knox wrote:
> Speaking from the perspective of a long time postgresql user, who
> currently has several very mission critical applications using postgresql
> on the back end, at a very large company...
>
> I can say the one consequence of the problem that I have run into
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
assault from their clients to use oracle or db2. Technically there was no
reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of
business, ther
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Robert Treat wrote:
> Well, my previous employer uses postgresql, but they were under constant
> assault from their clients to use oracle or db2. Technically there was no
> reason to switch, but if your choice is switch databases or go out of
> business, there really isn't muc
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >
> > > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> > > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> >
> > Consider that a failed experiment. Post
As someone who exists mainly as an active user (and part-time
advocate/documentation tweaker), I have found the release of PostgreSQL
7.3 to be disappointing. The ensuing pseudo-flamewar on the various
lists has been similarly disappointing.
I was surprised, for instance, to receive a non-list
> -Original Message-
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 December 2002 17:45
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
>
> Dave,
>
> > >
> > > BTW, we do
Dave,
> >
> > BTW, we do coordinate with the Website development group
>
> When did that happen then? I think I must have blinked :-)
Marc and Justin are periodically keeping the Advocacy group informed
of progress on wwwdevel, and we were asked to test it before. Vince
asked us for suggesti
> -Original Message-
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 23:37
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
>
> BTW, we do coordinate with the Website development group
W
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:26:13 -0500, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 12:12 AM 5/12/2002 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> I am happy with increasing market share so long a development is not
> distorted or current users inconvenienced. We have seen the latter with
> the misplaced announcements.
It seems to me
At 12:12 AM 5/12/2002 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> What are the consequences of the problem?
>
One consequence that probably hits home for everyone here is it makes it
extremely hard to make a living working with postgresql.
...
You can't win marketshare on technology alone
I am happy with
Folks,
We have a marketing group: PGSQL-ADVOCACY. Our problem is that we
don't have enough volunteers.
For example, last week Robert and Justin had job crises, and I left for
the mountains for Thanksgiving. As a result Marc had to pitch in at
the last minute to try to get some kind of release
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>>> It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
>>> stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>>
>> Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to have a marketing group
> > without there being some wilful blinders involved; it's vital for there to be
> > some technical involvement in the marketing group to pop whatev
On Thursday 05 December 2002 09:37, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to
> > be as fractured as they are. Good grief! We've got
> note that altho they are seperate URLs, the end result is goin
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 03:28, Dave Page wrote:
> www is a closed group consisting of a few of us who actually do the work
> on the sites.
This is one of the primary reasons the sites are so fractured. We have 4
different mailing lists for website development (and I'm not counting
advocacy as one o
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Scott Lamb wrote:
> Is this list the appropriate place to discuss the websites? or should I
> take it to -advocacy? My impression here is that the two sites are
> maintained separately and the people involved haven't interacted very
> much. Is that accurate or no?
Expect some
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to be as
> fractured as they are. Good grief! We've got advocacy.postgresql.org,
> techdocs.postgresql.org, odbc.postgresql.org, gborg.postgresql.org,
> developer.postgresql.org, jdbc.po
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
>
> What are the consequences of the problem?
Well, I'd have to say the major one is a difficult in increasing our user
base, as ppl lik
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to have a marketing group
> without there being some wilful blinders involved; it's vital for there to be
> some technical involvement in the marketing group to pop whatever bubbles they
> grow that are wo
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 06:37
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
> I'm volunteering to do work here. I could at the very least
> -Original Message-
> From: Lamar Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 04:23
> To: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
> However, I seriously question the need in the long term for
Lamar Owen wrote:
However, I seriously question the need in the long term for our sites to be as
fractured as they are. Good grief! We've got advocacy.postgresql.org,
techdocs.postgresql.org, odbc.postgresql.org, gborg.postgresql.org,
developer.postgresql.org, jdbc.postgresql.org, etc. Oh, a
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Philip Warner wrote:
> What are the consequences of the problem?
Speaking from the perspective of a long time postgresql user, who
currently has several very mission critical applications using postgresql
on the back end, at a very large company...
I can say the one conseque
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:54:37 -0500, Philip Warner wrote:
> > At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> >
> > What are the consequences of the problem?
> >
>
> One consequence that probably hits h
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:54:37 -0500, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
>
> What are the consequences of the problem?
>
One consequence that probably hits home for everyone here is it makes it
[cc: list trimmed]
On Wednesday 04 December 2002 22:52, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
> What are the consequences of the problem?
Actually, lack of easy upgrading is one of PostgreSQL's
At 05:48 PM 4/12/2002 -0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Lack of marketing is one of Postgres's major problems.
What are the consequences of the problem?
Particularly when you compare against similar efforts from MySQL, Oracle,
etc.
You could even include Microsoft here - they do a lot o
> > > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with
> a
> > > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
> >
> > Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
> > development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base. The
> > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with
a
> > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>
> Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
> development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base. The
> last thing
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> > stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
>
> Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
> development group and, to so
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> It isn't, but those working on -advocacy were asked to help come up with a
> stronger release *announcement* then we've had in the past ...
Consider that a failed experiment. PostgreSQL is driven by the
development group and, to some extent, by the existing user base.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier. It was full of buzzwords that
> > > were masking the actual content. Are you trying to hide the
> > > accomplishments or promote them
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier. It was full of buzzwords that
> > > were masking the actual content. Are you trying to hide the
> > > accomplishments or promote them
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier. It was full of buzzwords that
> > were masking the actual content. Are you trying to hide the
> > accomplishments or promote them? If you're trying to hide them like in
> > this ann
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'll preempt the 'this was all discussed on -advocacy, you should have
> > been there' response with yet another agreement with Vince :-) - I too
> > am getting far too much mail these days and another list is the la
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> I have a new design for it, now it's just getting the time to implement
> it. It's easy to add to and looks alot nicer.
Cool, I think the only beef I ever had with it was the way the results
were presented, but loved teh whole annotated aspects ...
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> That wasn't stronger, it was fluffier. It was full of buzzwords that
> were masking the actual content. Are you trying to hide the
> accomplishments or promote them? If you're trying to hide them like in
> this announcement you may want to try using
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll preempt the 'this was all discussed on -advocacy, you should have
> been there' response with yet another agreement with Vince :-) - I too
> am getting far too much mail these days and another list is the last
> thing I need.
I'm not subscribed to -ad
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > I'll preempt the 'this was all discussed on -advocacy, you should have
> > been there' response with yet another agreement with Vince :-) - I too
> > am getting far too much mail these days and another list is
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2002 13:56
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Justin Clift; Bruce Momjian;
> PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global
> Dev
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Justin Clift writes:
> >
> > > Of course we are, it's just that we're also trying to direct people to
> > > the Advocacy site where there is a lot more info, in a lot more languages.
> >
> > Why don't w
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Dave Page wrote:
> > And I'll pre-empt *that* with "the volume of email isn't
> > changing, only the ability to filter that email" ... the
> > purpose of the -advocacy list is to focus on how to better
> > market the software ... not through stuff like advertising,
> > but how
> -Original Message-
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2002 13:41
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Justin Clift; Bruce Momjian;
> PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Global
> Dev
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier writes:
> >
> > > Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> > > had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> > > it, I'm s
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
So as to not recreate the wheel, or, at least, get the wheel properly
rolling, can we get that download page redirected to the one that does
list the mirrors? :)
Yep.
Would the best way to do this be changing the wording to say something like:
"PostgreSQL can be downlo
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > > Yup, as with doing anything for the firs ttime, the press release itself
> > > had its 'bugs' ... considering how many times Josh asked for comments on
> > > it, I'm surprised that nobody picked up on
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
