

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:neilc@samurai.com] 
> Sent: 05 January 2003 22:38
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:15, Dave Page wrote:
> > There were always ads there
> 
> Yes -- but AFAIK there were in the process of being phased 
> out (furthermore, the old site only had ads on the initial 
> mirror page, whereas they are much more widespread on the new site).
> 
> > they help pay for the boxes.
> 
> Obviously, but it's VERY unprofessional for us to show ads to 
> users on our website. It goes without saying, but pretty much 
> every other non-trivial OSS project doesn't have ads on their 
> main website. Displaying ads makes us look more like a 
> Geocities site than a legitimate competitor to Oracle/DB2/etc.

Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
be paid for somehow. Purely speculation, but I would guess that the ads
are not recouping all of the cash it costs hub.org to host the sites as
it is.

> In fact, there are several groups that provide free hosting 
> for OSS projects, without requiring them to display ads on 
> their webpages (e.g. SourceForge, Savannah, etc.)

You're surely not suggesting that the various postgresql.org servers and
everything they do could be moved onto free space supplied by
Sourceforge or similar? I don't think they'd want to host Gborg for us
:-)

Regards, Dave.

Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:05:39 -0000
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> be paid for somehow.

Granted. I'm just trying to point out that putting ads on our webspace
is a pretty serious problem. If that's the *only* way to keep
postgresql.org, then so be it -- but perhaps there's another way to get
the necessary funds, as Gavin suggested (for example, a more efficient
mirroring scheme, using zlib compression for the main web server, etc.)

> You're surely not suggesting that the various postgresql.org servers and
> everything they do could be moved onto free space supplied by
> Sourceforge or similar?

No; I'm just pointing out that (a) putting ads on their websites is the
exception, rather than the rule, among reputable OSS projects (b) even
OSS projects that don't pay anything for their webspace don't need to
use banner ads.

Cheers,

Neil
-- 
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC




05 Jan 2003 18:58:49 -0500
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> be paid for somehow. Purely speculation, but I would guess that the ads
> are not recouping all of the cash it costs hub.org to host the sites as
> it is.

Not even close ... in fact, most of the banners there are in recognition
of those companies who themselves have provided invaluable resources for
the project by providing mirror sites, to reduce the overall traffic hits
on the central server ...




Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:32:59 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
>> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
>> be paid for somehow.

> Granted. I'm just trying to point out that putting ads on our webspace
> is a pretty serious problem. If that's the *only* way to keep
> postgresql.org, then so be it -- but perhaps there's another way to get
> the necessary funds, as Gavin suggested

I'm with Neil and Gavin on this: let's think about whether there's
another way to finance the website.  Perhaps there isn't, but let's
at least take a hard look at it.

Marc has put a *lot* of his own money into supporting the Postgres
servers over the years.  Maybe it's time for the rest of us to step up.

			regards, tom lane

Sun, 05 Jan 2003 20:42:51 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ... 
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 18:05, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Don't get me wrong, I personnally would prefer to remove them, however
> >> unless we get suitable corporate sponsorship the servers still have to
> >> be paid for somehow.
>
> > Granted. I'm just trying to point out that putting ads on our webspace
> > is a pretty serious problem. If that's the *only* way to keep
> > postgresql.org, then so be it -- but perhaps there's another way to get
> > the necessary funds, as Gavin suggested
>
> I'm with Neil and Gavin on this: let's think about whether there's
> another way to finance the website.  Perhaps there isn't, but let's
> at least take a hard look at it.
>
> Marc has put a *lot* of his own money into supporting the Postgres
> servers over the years.  Maybe it's time for the rest of us to step up.

Please understand something here ... a large portion of the banner ads are
*not* paid ... they are recognition of the many mirror sites that are
supporting the project by reducing the amount of bandwidth that is
required on the central server ...

We've only had a couple of ppl actually decide to subscribe to the banner
ad service itself, so it hasn't be a major revenue stream ... ;)

Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:08:18 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ... 
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Please understand something here ... a large portion of the banner ads are
> *not* paid ... they are recognition of the many mirror sites that are
> supporting the project by reducing the amount of bandwidth that is
> required on the central server ...

While the mirror sites deserve some recognition, I'm not convinced that
that should translate to banner ads on the main portal.

Could we set things up so that when you actually go to a mirror site,
you see some discreet notice about "this mirror sponsored by so-and-so"?

And I'm definitely not happy with reading

	Help Support This Site
	Post your Ad Here
	Pay Only for Visitors
	As Low As
	$0.10cdn per click-thru
	Hub.Org

on the main site.  That's several shades too mercenary for my taste.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:07:17 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ... 
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:32, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Not even close ... in fact, most of the banners there are in recognition
> of those companies who themselves have provided invaluable resources for
> the project by providing mirror sites, to reduce the overall traffic hits
> on the central server ...

That's fair enough. However, many other OSS projects use a mirror
system, but AFAIK not one of them compensates mirror operators through
banner ads.

For example, consider the Debian project. Mirroring the Debian archive
requires FAR more disk and bandwidth than mirroring postgresql.org, but
yet (a) they have plenty of mirrors (b) they don't have any banner ads
on their website.

My guess is that most mirror operators won't mind not getting to run
banner ads on postgresql.org -- I'd think the reason they're hosting a
mirror in the first-place is to contribute back to the project...

Cheers,

Neil
-- 
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC




06 Jan 2003 01:29:48 -0500
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
Tom Lane wrote:

>"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>  
>
>>Please understand something here ... a large portion of the banner ads are
>>*not* paid ... they are recognition of the many mirror sites that are
>>supporting the project by reducing the amount of bandwidth that is
>>required on the central server ...
>>    
>>
>
>While the mirror sites deserve some recognition, I'm not convinced that
>that should translate to banner ads on the main portal.
>
>Could we set things up so that when you actually go to a mirror site,
>you see some discreet notice about "this mirror sponsored by so-and-so"?
>
>And I'm definitely not happy with reading
>
>	Help Support This Site
>	Post your Ad Here
>	Pay Only for Visitors
>	As Low As
>	$0.10cdn per click-thru
>	Hub.Org
>
>on the main site.  That's several shades too mercenary for my taste.
>  
>

I think banner ads that build on PostgreSQL's message is a good thing. A 
RedHat ad, maybe IBM, etc. Companies with a related purpose to the 
PostgreSQL mission will offset some of the cost and help build the 
cedibility of the site.

Hotel ads and sweepstakes are a bad idea, though.

>  
>









Tom Lane wrote:

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
  

Please understand something here ... a large portion of the banner ads are
*not* paid ... they are recognition of the many mirror sites that are
supporting the project by reducing the amount of bandwidth that is
required on the central server ...
    


While the mirror sites deserve some recognition, I'm not convinced that
that should translate to banner ads on the main portal.

Could we set things up so that when you actually go to a mirror site,
you see some discreet notice about "this mirror sponsored by so-and-so"?

And I'm definitely not happy with reading

	Help Support This Site
	Post your Ad Here
	Pay Only for Visitors
	As Low As
	$0.10cdn per click-thru
	Hub.Org

on the main site.  That's several shades too mercenary for my taste.
  


I think banner ads that build on PostgreSQL's message is a good thing. A
RedHat ad, maybe IBM, etc. Companies with a related purpose to the PostgreSQL
mission will offset some of the cost and help build the cedibility of the
site.

Hotel ads and sweepstakes are a bad idea, though.
Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:25:20 -0500
mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
On 7 Jan 2003 at 16:25, mlw wrote:

> I think banner ads that build on PostgreSQL's message is a good thing.
> A RedHat ad, maybe IBM, etc. Companies with a related purpose to the
> PostgreSQL mission will offset some of the cost and help build the
> cedibility of the site.
> 
> Hotel ads and sweepstakes are a bad idea, though.

I think that those who are objecting to ads on the site should follow 
the suggestion given by Josh Berkus at 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-01/msg00191.php

In other words, stop providing suggestions as to what can be done.  
Get off your own ass and do it.  In short, put up or shut up.
-- 
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/


Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:30:33 -0500
"Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Dan Langille wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2003 at 16:25, mlw wrote:
> 
> > I think banner ads that build on PostgreSQL's message is a good thing.
> > A RedHat ad, maybe IBM, etc. Companies with a related purpose to the
> > PostgreSQL mission will offset some of the cost and help build the
> > cedibility of the site.
> > 
> > Hotel ads and sweepstakes are a bad idea, though.
> 
> I think that those who are objecting to ads on the site should follow 
> the suggestion given by Josh Berkus at 
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-01/msg00191.php
> 
> In other words, stop providing suggestions as to what can be done.  
> Get off your own ass and do it.  In short, put up or shut up.

If I wanted to support the whole hosting operating myself with no help
from hub.org, how many gigabytes of data transfer per month would I be
looking at for (1) the main site and (2) a mirror?

Jon

Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:37:44 +0000 (UTC)
Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: New Portal in Place, DNS switched ...