Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re:

Apology

After Mark calms down and, in fact, sees that Greg was saying the right
thing after all, chagrin is the only word.

I'm sorry.

Greg Copeland wrote:

>On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 11:23, mlw wrote:
>
>
>>Greg Copeland wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd personally rather have people stumble trying to get PostgreSQL
>>>running, up front, rather than allowing the lowest common denominator
>>>more easily run PostgreSQL only to be disappointed with it and move on.
>>>
>>>After it's all said and done, I would rather someone simply say, "it's
>>>beyond my skill set", and attempt to get help or walk away. That seems
>>>better than them being able to run it and say, "it's a dog", spreading
>>>word-of-mouth as such after they left PostgreSQL behind. Worse yet,
>>>those that do walk away and claim it performs horribly are probably
>>>doing more harm to the PostgreSQL community than expecting someone to be
>>>able to install software ever can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>><RANT>
>>
>>And that my friends is why PostgreSQL is still relatively obscure.
>>
>>This attitude sucks. If you want a product to be used, you must put the
>>effort into making it usable.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Ah..okay....
>
>
>
>
>>It is a no-brainer to make the default configuration file suitable for
>>the majority of users. It is lunacy to create a default configuration
>>which provides poor performance for over 90% of the users, but which
>>allows the lowest common denominator to work.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I think you read something into my email which I did not imply. I'm
>certainly not advocating a default configuration file assuming 512M of
>share memory or some such insane value.
>
>Basically, you're arguing that they should keep doing exactly what they
>are doing. It's currently known to be causing problems and propagating
>the misconception that PostgreSQL is unable to perform under any
>circumstance. I'm arguing that who cares if 5% of the potential user
>base has to learn to properly install software. Either they'll read and
>learn, ask for assistance, or walk away. All of which are better than
>Jonny-come-lately offering up a meaningless benchmark which others are
>happy to eat with rather large spoons.
>
>
>
>
>>A product must not perform poorly out of the box, period. A good product
>>manager would choose one of two possible configurations, (a) a high
>>speed fairly optimized system from the get-go, or (b) it does not run
>>unless you create the configuration file. Option (c) out of the box it
>>works like crap, is not an option.
>>
>>
>>
>
>That's the problem. Option (c) is what we currently have. I'm amazed
>that you even have a problem with option (a), as that's what I'm
>suggesting. The problem is, potentially for some minority of users, it
>may not run out of the box. As such, I'm more than happy with this
>situation than 90% of the user base being stuck with a crappy default
>configuration.
>
>Oddly enough, your option (b) is even worse than what you are ranting at
>me about. Go figure.
>
>
>
>>This is why open source gets such a bad reputation. Outright contempt
>>for the user who may not know the product as well as those developing
>>it. This attitude really sucks and it turns people off. We want people
>>to use PostgreSQL, to do that we must make PostgreSQL usable. Usability
>>IS important.
>></RANT>
>>
>>
>
>
>There is no contempt here. Clearly you've read your own bias into this
>thread. If you go back and re-read my posting, I think it's VERY clear
>that it's entirely about usability.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>