> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com [mailto:pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:37 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Tom Lane; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD;
> jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com; tswan(at)idigx(dot)com; Bruce Momjian; Greg
> Stark; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com [mailto:pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
> >> To: Tom Lane
> >> Cc: Dann Corbit; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD; jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com;
> >> tswan(at)idigx(dot)com; Bruce Momjian; Greg Stark;
> >> pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> >> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
> >> > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
> >> >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
> >> times as many
> >> >> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions
> now on UNIX
> >> >> flavors
> >> >
> >> > I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases.
> The folks
> >> > running those should know better than to use Windows, and
> >> if they do
> >> > not, I'll be happy to tell them so.
> > I know better than to tell people to change their operating system.
> > Linux is a great OS, and people familiar with it will do
> > well. But there are 40 million computers sold in a year, most of
> > which have some flavor of Windows installed.
> How many billions of cigarettes are sold? How many Big Macs?
> Popularity does not imply quality or safety.
Right. It implies volume. That was the only point I was making. If
everyone is wearing suede shoes, you will have trouble selling shoe
> > People know how to use and
> > administer them, and they have all their applications in Windows.
> > They are not going to change for ideological reasons.
> This is interesting, since when is ideology *not* the
> american way? Have you looked at politics lately?
I am also politically neutral and have not voted since I was 18 as a
matter of conscience.
> > Also, it isn't just
> > DBAs that need to implement database systems. Suppose, for
> > that I want to write an accounting package. I can use
> PostgreSQL as a
> > base and save my customers thousands of dollars. If I tell them,
> > "Now, you need to reformat your machine and install Linux"
> that would
> > not be very popular. But they don't even need to know about the
> > database. And they should not have to care about the OS.
> A database
> > and an operating system are both things to help get work done.
> > Believe it or not, lots of large companies depend on Windows OS.
> I've been in the trenches for a while now, and I haven't met
> a single CIO that is comfortable with Windows. They hate the
> cost, they hate the viruses, they hate the instability. The
> only thing they hate more is being isolated on an island.
> Fortunately Linux is becoming less obscure.
> > Personally, I am technology neutral. My position is "use
> whatever you
> > like."
> I would call myself "neutral" to a point, but when I have to
> give advice, I have to tell the truth. A little Linux goes a long way.
For me, if I was going to start a company, Linux is a technically
superior solution for a server in my view. This is especially true due
to license reasons. If I want a thousand users on a machine, the cost
for a Windows solution dwarfs any reasons I can think of not to switch
to Linux. However, if a company does not have personnel trained to
administrate Linux machines and applications, then something else might
be a better choice for them. ("Fire all your workers and hire new
ones." does not work)
> >> This is a prejudice that we should try to avoid. Yes, Windows is
> >> lacking on so many levels, but that really isn't the point.
> > Every OS has advantages and disadvantages.
> Some more than other.
And yet each choice can have different weights depending upon who is
using it, for what reasons, and other business factors.
> > The applications for Windows
> > are many and mature. The tool sets available for Linux are
> > and usually free. If you want real 24x7x365.25 then MVS cannot be
> > beat. The file versioning and protections of OpenVMS are something
> > that all operating systems should have modeled.
> >> A good box running Win2K or XP Server, with no internet
> >> and no user applications, can really perform and be
> reliable. Would I
> >> choose this? Hell no, but there are HUGE amount of people
> who either
> >> don't know any better or have no real choice.
> > And there are knowledgeable people who understand Windows,
> Linux and
> > many other operating systems who choose Windows because it
> is the best
> > choice for their company.
> I seriously do not know anyone, including myself, that would
> choose Windows on technical merrits alone. I know some need
> to choose it for "killer" application requirements, but not on merrit.
Religious arguments are hard to fight when one person is unable to
> As for best choice for their company, I can't even say that
> with a straight face.
Then for those customers for which it is the best choice, you would give
them bad advice.
> >> The REAL bonus here is getting PostgreSQL in their hands.
> Right now,
> >> for the small to medium business running Windows, Microsoft has a
> >> virtual lock with SQL Server. SQL Server is expensive and a real
> >> PAIN.
> > It is expensive and a multi-user system ramps the cost. But it is
> > easier to administer than PostgreSQL. Hopefully, autovacuum will
> > remove most of this discrepancy.
> Having dealt with both, as well as MySQL, DB2, and Oracle, I
> not sure I agree with that statement. As long as MSSQL is
> installed correctly the first time, it may be OK.
It is the easiest of those database systems you named to install and
> >> Giving Windows users PostgreSQL with a good set of .NET, ODBC, and
> >> JDBC drivers loosens the Microsoft stranglehold, just a
> little bit.
> >> If they develop their application with MSSQL, there is a
> good chance
> >> it will never use any open source software and always run
> on Windows.
> >> If they develop their application using PostgreSQL, there
> is a better
> >> likelyhood that other open source projects will be used, AND
> >> that should the requirement be to upgrade the system, a wider
> >> range of OS and hardware options will present themselves.
> > Microsoft dominates because they offer real value (the world is not
> > completely full of idiot CEOs -- they make decisions based
> on profit).
> FACT: Microsoft dominates because they break the law.
FACT: Every blanket statement is an over-generalization.
Microsoft has done some very seedy and evil things. The destruction of
STAK comes to mind. As far as domination by giving things away, that is
ludicrous. You can download Linux and most Linux applications for
nothing. In essense, they give everything away (really, you are buying
service when you purchase a Linux CD) and MS has to compete with 'free'
-- not just for the tack-on stuff but for the entire system and all the
applications. It shows you how well done some of their stuff is, that
it can compete in that arena.
> > The open source community is closing the gap, but it has a
> long way to
> > go. I don't see Microsoft as the dark side of the force or
> Then you have not had your company stomped on by them.
I have had to deal with many things that were unpleasant and caused
directly by MS doing something strange or bad. I have lost days of work
because of it.
> have not worked on technologies like "Go Computing."
I don't even know what 'Go Computing' is, so you are right about that
> > Actually, the approach of PostgreSQL and ACE is (too me) the most
> > superior. The GPL approach is far too confining, and
> getting a black
> > box that will be a terrible mystery if it breaks are not nearly so
> > pleasant.
> GPL vs BSD is a long debate.
Clearly won by BSD for me (no contest whatsoever), and others like GPL
> > Instead of telling people how to do their jobs, I suggest
> the approach
> > of providing the best possible tools and letting them decide how to
> > use them.
> We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we
> are bound by our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.
It must be nice to be young and still see everything as black and white
with no shades of gray. For those who think that Windows should be
canned, Gates should be burned at the stake, and Linux should rule the
world, I have no problem with their opinions. We all get to choose what
we like and dislike. I think that the typical Linux fan is WAY over the
top both in seeing the advantages with rose colored glasses and turing
opposition molehills into mountains. But passion is good, and I like to
see it. If it were not for the passion of the Linux crowd, there would
be a far less interesting competitor for MS and a far less interesting
toolset to use with it.
Maybe the thread should go to some advocacy channel at this point.
My reason for jumping in was to show that:
1. PostgreSQL will have a exponential leap in possible sites when it
opens up to Win32 systems
2. There will be huge installations on Win32 systems, like it or not.
Some other things to keep in mind:
1. The average Windows user is far, far less computer saavy than a
Linux (or other flavor of UNIX user) and hence, there will be a big load
of "deer in the headlights" users coming on board.
2. On the plus side, there are millions of good developers familiar
with Windows. Some of these may become involved with the PostgreSQL
project and give added value.
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dann Corbit||Date: 2004-06-11 21:14:21|
|Subject: TESTING (was: RE: More vacuum.c refactoring )|
|Previous:||From: pgsql||Date: 2004-06-11 20:37:08|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces|
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Manfred Spraul||Date: 2004-06-11 21:27:52|
|Subject: Re: Compiling libpq with VisualC|
|Previous:||From: pgsql||Date: 2004-06-11 20:37:08|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces|