Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>
Cc: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Date: 2003-01-31 05:29:39
Message-ID: 3E3A09C3.C0026B5A@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> Greg Copeland wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> > > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> > > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> > > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable
> > > enough.
> >
> > I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on
> > something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero
> > to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market
> > is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share
> > holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest
> > software audience in the world were completely ignored.
> >
> > Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting
> > any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to
> > make money; they're even obligated to do so.
>
> That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has
> their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation?
> More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix*
> community? The answer, I think, is no.
>
> And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the
> reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a
> native Windows port to the world.

More to the point, does the unreliable Cygwin port possibly do our
reputation any good? It is known to crash with corruptions under less
than heavy load.

Looking at the arguments so far, nearly everyone who questions the Win32
port must be vehemently against the Cygwin stuff anyway. So that camp
should be happy to see it flushed down the toilet. And the pro-Win32
people want the native version because they are unhappy with the
stepchild-Cygwin stuff too, so they won't care too much.

Anyone here who likes the Cygwin port or can we yank it out right now?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-01-31 06:03:55 Re: Request for qualified column names
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-01-31 05:27:42 Re: postgres installation - best configuration?