On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> >functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I
> >just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to include.
> >Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL? It just
> >seems very arbitrary to include commercial software. If someone wants
> >to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't
> >seems as official.
>
> I agree that the commercial offerings shouldn't be named directly in the
> docs, but it should be mentioned that some commercial options are
> available and a starting point to find more information.
>
> If potential new users look through the docs and it says no options
> available for what they want or consider they will need in the future
> then they go elsewhere, if they know that some options are available
> then they will look further if they want that feature.
>
> something like
> "There are currently no open source solutions available for this option
> but there are some commercial offerings. More details of some available
> solutions can be found at postgresql.org/support/...."
I think this is probably the best compromise. Keep in mind that many
people who are looking at us will also be looking at MySQL, which is
itself a commercial offering. It's good to let folks know that with
PostgreSQL, they have more control over how much money they spend for
commercial add-ons and support.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)