Re: Download links

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Saturday 30 August 2008 15:59:41 Dave Page wrote:
>
>> The ordering intentionally puts the easy to use, one size fits all
>> above the platform specific packaging. Experience tells us that the
>> people that have most trouble figuring out what to download tend to be
>> the ones for whom the one-click point and drool packages are the most
>> appropriate. The more experienced users are generally able to find the
>> 'exact-fit' packages for their distro.
>>
>
> What is concerning me is that the one-click installer is essentially a
> proprietary product and it is put into the prominent spot PostgreSQL ->
> Download -> Linux -> first choice. Now, basically everyone who wants free
> advertisement has to make their own one-click installer and fight with you
> for that spot. At the very least, the whole thing should be moved to a
> community-hosted infrastructure, an open development model, and no company
> advertisement.
>
I wholeheartedly agree that EDB should get lots of credit for the
installers they've developed, I think that it goes a long way towards
improving usability of PostgreSQL, especially for folks who were stymied
by complex installation and setup requirements.

That being said, the issue that I see with EDB hosting is that they now
have access to information about who is downloading from where,
information that can be used to determine where they should advertise
more heavily, what customers might be investigating PostgreSQL, and even
geographical areas they should focus their marketing and product
offerings. Information that isn't available to the PostgreSQL
community-at-large, and information that would likely be useful for lots
of other PG related companies, such as OTG, CMD, 2ndQuadrant and
others. Is there even a policy with regard to what they do with this
information? Does the community provide this information to the
public-at-large (I suspect not, for privacy reasons)?

As a side note, I see that the EDB page that hosts this is using google
analytics...

It gets worse when we consider the other companies that might release
similar products for similar purposes, and the precedent has already
been set.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

chander
> (For related reasons, I think the company names on the download pages should
> be deleted altogether.)
>
> Also, I would personally never recommend anyone using a non-distro packaged
> binary, which is why I am concerned that we are putting this into the
> prominent spot. There are good technical reasons for that recommendation.
> For example, if you install a nonpackaged version of libpq, none of the other
> packages available in your distro that depend on libpq will work. The
> explanation you give above is acknowledged but I don't believe it is
> accurate. The distro packaging should be the default even for the
> non-superguru user.
>

--
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-463-0999/877-258-8987
http://www.otg-nc.com