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

Reply via email to