On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> >> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> >> be paid for somehow.
> > Granted. I'm just trying to point out that putting ads on our webspace
> > is a pretty serious problem. If that's the *only* way to keep
> > postgresql.org, then so be it -- but perhaps there's another way to get
> > the necessary funds, as Gavin suggested
> I'm with Neil and Gavin on this: let's think about whether there's
> another way to finance the website. Perhaps there isn't, but let's
> at least take a hard look at it.
> Marc has put a *lot* of his own money into supporting the Postgres
> servers over the years. Maybe it's time for the rest of us to step up.
Please understand something here ... a large portion of the banner ads are
*not* paid ... they are recognition of the many mirror sites that are
supporting the project by reducing the amount of bandwidth that is
required on the central server ...
We've only had a couple of ppl actually decide to subscribe to the banner
ad service itself, so it hasn't be a major revenue stream ... ;)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2003-01-06 02:13:34|
|Subject: Evolutionary Database Design|
|Previous:||From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy||Date: 2003-01-06 01:51:12|
|Subject: Re: Implementing a new Join Algorithm|