Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com,"Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0
Date: 2004-08-13 16:44:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>> I would like to see CMD mentioned in connection with Mammoth Replicator
>>>> as well. Yes, it is a closed source commercial add on, but still it is
>>>> something that apparently attracts customers who otherwise would have
>>>> had trouble making the decision pro-PostgreSQL. After all, this use of
>>>> PostgreSQL is one of the best reasons for the BSD license.
>>> I am not in favor of mentioning a commercial product in our press
>>> release, especially when we have an open source alternative.
>> Well if that doesn't just beg for argument. We gave away commercial
>> applications at the PostgreSQL OSCON booth (SRA)? Several people
>> there were commercial entities basically selling their services?
>> What denotes commercial? plPHP and plPerlNG are both commercial.
> The release relates to our released software and other BSD-licensed code
> released around the same time with singificant new functionality.

2 month old releases constitute 'around the same time'?  Actually, if we 
go for a release on (or after) Oct 1st, that will mean Slony 1.0 was 
released 3 months previous to it ...

> Basically, I see you and Marc, both selling commercial replication 
> solutions, arguing we shouldn't mention Slony, and everyone else saying 
> we should.  Are you guys being unbiased in your evaluation of mentioning 
> Slony.  I don't think your commercial interests should affect your 
> opinion in this matter.  I am not sure they are, but I have to ask.

In my case, I know they aren't ... I'm being 'biased' because Slony *is 
not* being relesaed, it is an add-on that was previously released (on July 
5th of this year, in fact) ... and it is something large enough that it 
should have a press release of its own *when* its developers feel it is 
ready ... in fact, I may have mis-read Heather @ Afilias' email earlier in 
this thread, but I got the impression that *they* didn't feel it was ready 
for a press release, and I quote:

"We agree Mark. What I talked with Josh about is our interest in getting
Slony in use with some organizations in an enterprise capacity as well as
ensuring that commercial support is available (hence our workshop on Slony
at OSCON). Our plan is that once we have these details sewn up we can
directly pitch case studies of Slony's use with adequate customer and
support service references. Then we'd like to pursue product reviews.

The first step is to get this in production in our organization and then 
we can think more about the press strategy."

So, again, unless I'm mis-reading Heather (and I think she's fairly 
clear), "pitching Slony" in our press release is *not* desired by them 
either ...

Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-08-13 16:47:20
Subject: Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0
Previous:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2004-08-13 16:34:58
Subject: Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group