Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Databases Programming Software IT

PostgreSQL Gets New Website, 8.0 Release Candidate 42

Posted by timothy from the elepantses dept.
gavinroy writes "As can be seen at PostgreSQL, the PostgreSQL www team has released the new version of the site sporting a new clean and more professional look. This is hot on the heels of PostgreSQL 8.0 RC2 which includes numerous bug fixes and is one step closer to production ready PostgreSQL on the Win32 platform." Neil Bahroos points out this ZDNet article on the upcoming 8.0 release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PostgreSQL Gets New Website, 8.0 Release Candidate More

PostgreSQL Gets New Website, 8.0 Release Candidate

Comments Filter:
  • I liked the old design better, but I guess it's just a question of time till I get used to it. And the new website doesn't use tables for the layout. Would like to see such modernization at slashdot, too.

    BTW: I think the good documentation for PostgreSQL is reason enough to use it. This is a big plus for me. In contrary I don't like the MySQL documentation at all.
  • The web site looks veyr nice and professional. I think good web designs like this will help improve OSS image with the PHBs. But, why the fixed width at 800 pixels? I have so much screen that's empty when reading the site that could be put to use.
    • Please, give us back the old site! It's true that the new one is pretty, but it's so hard to read! Small fonts, low contrast between background and foreground, non-fluid layout. I don't know how easy it is to navigate, because I can't read the links.


      Why is it that so many people work so hard to make things worse? The default colors, fonts, etc. give a pretty usable page. If you're going to change them, at least make them better!

  • At first glance, it reminded me a lot of RedHat's website [redhat.com]. I wonder if they 'borrowed' XHTML and CSS code from them...

  • The web site (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Masa ( 74401 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @04:55PM (#11162846) Journal
    Aah... those fond memories. I remember, when I first time tried the PostgreSQL... I went to their web site and was scared away, because I thought it was some commercial closed source product that cannot even be evaluated without signing up for a demo version or something other horrible soul-eating stuff... The web site was so professional-looking even years ago that at the first time I was totally fooled about it.

    It's surprising, how huge effect a visual layout can have. At that time, I was only used to see ugly, unprofessional-looking open source project homepages. But PostgreSQL has always been an exception. In my opinion they have always had a very good-looking web site.

    It's surprising, how much visual appearance can affect our (or at least my) judgment. I hope that this is something that all OSS projects keep in mind when designing web sites and user interfaces.

    • It's surprising, how huge effect a visual layout can have. At that time, I was only used to see ugly, unprofessional-looking open source project homepages. But PostgreSQL has always been an exception. In my opinion they have always had a very good-looking web site.

      Back around when Wikipedia upgraded its software and gained a new default appearance, there were concerns expressed that because it was slick and polished, people wouldn't get the idea that they could change it. And quite a few of them actuall

    • New name (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GCP ( 122438 )
      Yes, it's surprising how much effect some things can have.

      I wish they would upgrade the name to something less cutesy and more practical. I'm not trolling here, at least not intentionally. Unlike certain toy DBs that are more popular with Open Sourcers, PostreSQL is a serious, enterprise-class database that amazingly is available for free with no strings attached, even for commercial use. It's terrific.

      But the name is so bad that those who don't know the product well don't know how to pronounce it and tho

      • Yes, the PostgreSQL name is a horrible accretion of hacker word puns that few can pronounce correctly. If I remember correctly, I think the history of names is:
        1. Ingres
        2. Postgres
        3. Postgres95
        4. PostgreSQL

        I think a good name would be "Progress". It hints at the program's history. It is easy to pronounce and it has GOOD connotations! :D
        • These folks [progress.com] might not appreciate it.
        • Yes, the PostgreSQL name is a horrible accretion of hacker word puns that few can pronounce correctly.

          Not to mention that to an untrained eye such as mine, the name reads as though it should be a very strange-sounding variety of SQL, namely, "Postgre". Pffffffft! It leaves a bad taste in my mouth just to think of saying it.

          I'm glad this software has a new website. When will it get a new name?

      • Just PostSQL,
        post as in after or even better beyond !!
        beyond sql
        and it can be pronounced postsequel

        postsequel is definitly easier on the tongue and easier to remember, but then I am not sure if it's smart to change names now ...
      • Bingo.

        PostgreSQL on Windows is really slick (after using it on Linux for years, I installed Beta 2 under Win2K and I haven't had a single problem yet). I think it's going to get a huge boost with the official 8.0 release; it would be great if they could go to a clearly pronouncible name.

        But whatever flag they fly under, I'm really pleased to see them getting so close to the 8.0 release. It's an incredibly good bit of software. Congratulations guys.
  • A list of new features as compared to 7.x? I can't find one on the PostgreSQL website.
  • The biggest benefit of PostgreSQL 8.0.0 is that for the first time it will run natively on Microsoft Windows servers

    Honk if you think being able to run on Winders is the most important feature in this, the best relational DB around. I tend to think that not being able to run on Winduhs is a feature. It prevents PHBs from getting silly ideas like "Windows is a viable platform."

    • Hell, let me feed the trolls... (Score:5, Informative)

      by thecampbeln ( 457432 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:30PM (#11164029) Homepage
      ...I've been running a WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Perl) for a while now. Nothing professional per-say, but definitely my ideas nursery. I have thus far been too scared/lazy/busy/etc to change out the W for the L, but I have activity chosen Linux apps on the box in preparation for the move to Linux. Getting the servers properly configured is the hardest part. Now that I at least have the AMP properly configured, my eventual Linux migration will be that much easier.

      This is why a native Win32 build is important. I looked at PostgreSQL a while ago, and even got the non-official Win32 build to run on the box. Ironically, the more Linux/Open Source applications I get running on that Windows box, the closer I am to making the jump to Linux for good. And since I refuse to upgrade past Windows 2000, that day is rapidly approaching. The only things holding me back now are my DNS and Mail servers (I've currently got Windows only servers). If I could have found a Win32 build of a Linux Mail and DNS server, I'd literally have nothing keeping me off Linux right now.

      The most important thing for me was to get the servers up and running. I know Windows, I didn't know Linux. So instead of adding another thing to learn, I took the path or least resistance and installed Linux/Open Source servers under Windows. And I don't think I'm alone. Just look at this recent story [slashdot.org]... I think TheRaven64 got it right [slashdot.org].

      BTW: Anyone have a Win32 build of Linux Mail/DNS servers for me to kick around? Anyone?

      • Being a fan of java, Apache JAMES [apache.org] is my current mail server favorite. The Mailet API is a really cool for customization and it boasts really good performance numbers (check the wiki for more info). And it runs on anything with a recent JRE.
  • "PostgreSQL handles virtually all the standard SQL constructs. It is easy (relatively speaking) to administer, it is fast, it is efficient, it has a great API, and it supports ODBC, why would you choose something else?"
    Mark Woodward, Mohawk Software     "Virtuall all"? "Relatively speaking"? I think Postgre is great, but they need to get better stuff than this on thier front page.
  • when PostgreSQL release their latest version (8.0) all Open Source database project will have a native port to Windows.

    Open Source Database comparison: MySQL, PostgreSQL, MaxDB, Firebird and Ingres [geocities.com]
    • There is a lot of literally false information about PostgreSQL in that "comparison", including the privileges section.

      I will contact the author to get it corrected...
      • It's okay, it was last updated in January of 2005 -- obviously they know about upcoming changes that you don't. The Firebird section is sorely lacking in detail too; most of the "other interesting db comparisons" seem centered (biased?) around MySQL. I would more willingly trust a comparison between, say, PostgreSQL and Firebird if it were put out by either of those teams than anything coming from MySQL, Oracle, or anybody else with a high monetary stake in the deal.

        Everybody's going to be a bit sloppy tho

    • Re:PostgreSQL Windows Native support (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A much better database comparison can be found here [arvin.dk]. In detail shows the differences between each major DB and the SQL Standard.
  • I don't like the fixed width thing, and I thought the old site looked pretty good, and waaas very functional.. I don't see the need for a change..
    -SR

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close