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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
