Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
On 11/30/2004 5:27 PM, Mike Cox wrote: Ultimately, the RFD is about providing a place for _Usenet_ PostgreSQL users who have been neglected for quite some time. With the ease of posting to the big 8 group, and the very large propegation, I can see why the comp.databases.postgresql group will be very popular. I originally tried to include the developers so they could follow the comp PostgreSQL group through their mailing list, but that proved too technically difficult. If they want to follow what will be a huge PostgreSQL usenet community in the big 8, they will have to subscribe to comp.databases.postgresql. :-) Mike, I do recognize your honesty and good intentions. You originally tried to scratch an itch of many people. That is, that the PostgreSQL newsgroups were not carried by their NSP. In doing so, you have opened a can of worms (happens). As usual, a once opened can of worms can only be re-canned by using a bigger can. If you think that telling 99% of the "knowledge" on these mailing lists that they are only 1% of the users and that a huge PostgreSQL usenet community will discuss a lot of interesting stuff aside of them will change much, you're wrong ;-) I have been contributing to things via USENET and whatnot for over 15 years and all I know is that people either make the mistake to abandon a good open source product (and pay bucks to some greedy company instead) or they find the way to the forum, where the real "knowledge" is answering, and stop reading the unproductive mailing lists or newsgroups at all. Many of the PostgreSQL contributors are like me - long standing open source developers, contributors, people who left USENET behind years ago and who know that for "them" nothing will change as long as they don't unsubscribe from the mailing lists, no matter what happens on a newsgroup. The committed users will follow where we go and the professional users are there already, waiting for us. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Trying to sway the vote? > There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try > to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. Both of you are under the illusion that this was a Usenet discussion. Marc was asking the members of *a mailing list* whether they'd consider moving over to a Usenet group as a substitute. By my count the vote so far was 99% "no way", so you should stop supposing that the core list membership cares about Usenet. We could care less, and the more we hear from the likes of gburnore the more we are inclined to install a solid firewall between us and you. There are however a fair number of people who prefer to use newsreader interfaces to read the PG discussions, and for their sakes I'd like to find an amicable solution. As someone who retired from newsadmin'ing a dozen years ago, I'm not about to defend the rogue comp.databases.postgresql groups --- that was poorly done from the start. But can't we fix it and move on? > Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not > that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. Indeed. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
On 11/30/2004 5:55 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: Marc G. Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Harris) writes: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader vs a mail reader ... FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at the time. Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... Which is all the contributing developers, all the key people in the project. So that newsgroup whould be for whom? I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php Trying to sway the vote? Perhaps. The long term solution for this incompatibility seems clear to me. Set it up as a moderated newsgroups under pgsql.* and have the moderator bot respond with a fixed "if you want your message to be read by all PostgreSQL community members, you must post to the underlying mailing list ..." with a reference how to do the nomail subscribe etc. and the gateway setting Follow-Up-To: and so on so that news-lurkers usually mail it to the list server anyway. Everything else will lead to constant work on Marc's side, delayed or double posts, all the crap people have been complaining about. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
Woodchuck Bill wrote: >> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php > > Trying to sway the vote? > > Well, you have to admit that for _developers_, email is probably better. But remember developers are probably less than 1% of all PostgreSQL users. PostgreSQL is very popular, and is most likely among the most widely used BSD licensed projects. Ultimately, the RFD is about providing a place for _Usenet_ PostgreSQL users who have been neglected for quite some time. With the ease of posting to the big 8 group, and the very large propegation, I can see why the comp.databases.postgresql group will be very popular. I originally tried to include the developers so they could follow the comp PostgreSQL group through their mailing list, but that proved too technically difficult. If they want to follow what will be a huge PostgreSQL usenet community in the big 8, they will have to subscribe to comp.databases.postgresql. :-) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
Marc G. Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Harris) writes: > >>"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch >>> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > >>> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there >>> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that >>> is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news >>> reader vs a mail reader ... > >>FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a >>comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET >>guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL >>in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* >>hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the >>norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the >>immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at >>the time. > > Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* > comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... > this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that > those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of > knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... > > I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous > to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by > ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php Trying to sway the vote? -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>Trying to sway the vote? > > There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try > to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. I didn't say that he was not entitled. > Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? Please follow your own advice, Barbara. -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
Marc G. Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: > >>>Marc G. Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >>> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php >>> >>>Trying to sway the vote? > >>There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try >>to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. > >>Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not >>that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. > > Actually, I didn't find Bill's comment 'combative' ... :) Nor was it intended to be that way. :-) -- Bill ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >On 30 Nov 2004 22:55:00 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >>Marc G. Fournier From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >>> Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* >>> comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... >>> this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that >>> those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of >>> knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... >>> >>> I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous >>> to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by >>> ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: >>> >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php >> >>Trying to sway the vote? >There has been no CFV. During an RFD, he's completely entitled to try >to persuade others people to vote yes or no when the time comes. >Bill, is it possible for you to drop the combative tone? It's not >that helpful to constantly raise the temperature of the discussion. Actually, I didn't find Bill's comment 'combative' ... :) as to 'swaying the vote' ... by no means, since few on the lists would know how/where to vote in the first place ... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
For what its worth, I vote no. I like the mailing lists. If having a newsgroup is beneficial, I say go ahead and start one, but don't mess around with the mailing lists, please. I really like the one or two digests I get in my mailbox everyday. - Greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Harris) writes: >"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch >> to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" >> As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there >> is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is >> available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader >> vs a mail reader ... >FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a >comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET >guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL >in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* >hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm >tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the >immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at >the time. Just as an FYI ... the latest RFD is for *one* comp.databases.postgresql group to be created, that is not-gated ... this means that those using it would not have the benefit(s) that those using the pgsql.* hierarchy do, namely access to the wealth of knowledge/experience of those on the mailing lists ... I had posed the 'who would use USENET' question on -hackers previous to the poll, and the general opinion was "not in this life time" by ppl like PeterE, TomL, JoshuaD, etc ... the thread can be seen: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg01110.php ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Harris > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:50 PM > To: Marc G. Fournier > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ... > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch > > to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > > > As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there > > is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is > > available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader > > vs a mail reader ... > > FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a > comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET > guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL > in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* > hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm > tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the > immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at > the time. > > My $0.02. > me too. Funny how the YES vote got interpreted for us. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch > to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" > As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there > is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is > available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader > vs a mail reader ... FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at the time. My $0.02. Bill -- Bill Harris Facilitated Systems http://facilitatedsystems.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Bill Harris wrote: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "If there was an official newsgroup for postgresql, would you switch to using Usenet from using the mailing lists?" As a side note, for those that do vote 'yes', please note that there is an official pgsql.* hierarchy gated from the mailing lists, that is available at news.postgresql.org, if you do wish to use a news reader vs a mail reader ... FWIW, I voted yes, but my vote depended upon it being a comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, done according to USENET guidelines. I sense that would be a lot more important for PostgreSQL in the long term and a lot more sustainable in general than a pgsql.* hierarchy. It's been my experience that processes done outside the norm tend to have extra problems along the way that cost more than the immediate gratification is worth, even if it does seem more painful at the time. Just as an FYI, the pgsql.* hierarchy was done within the guidelines, or, at least, was done with the aid of the newsadmins of two of the larger news sites on the 'Net (Stanford and Supernews, both of which carry, and distribute, it), *and* has been picked up by ISC as an official hierarchy, including in the active file that it distributes on their FTP server ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
