Re: Microsoft releses Services for Unix

> > > Windows userswill always prefer a Windows solution to a Unix
> > > solution running on SFU... I'd say sticking with the
> original goal
> > > of making a native Win32 version would be preferable.
> >
> > Plus I'll bet we couldn't distribute the required
> components ourselves
> > and would thus require the user to download interix first.
>
> Yes, but consider this:
> 1. from a windows developer's point of view, requiring
> Interix is no better or worse than requiring cygwin or mingw,
> except for maybe the size of the download/install.

Taking off the developer hat and putting on the sysadmin hat, from what
I've seen on earlier versions of SFU, I would *much much* prefer SFU
over Cygwin.
a) It's smaller (very much so)
b) It's implemented at a lower layer. It's not on top of Win32, it's
beside it.
c) It's MS. This means it's included in MS support agreements etc.

> 4. 'Native' is a funny term. Interix runs at the same
> operations level as the win32 API (not above it, as cygwin,
> or application level emulation code). To a certain way of
> thinking, Interix applications are more native than win32 API
> code written to achieve the same purpose.

To be strict, it'd probably not be native win32, but native NT. In
reality, people wouldn't care that much - it's native windows.

> The soon to be released version 3.5 has greatly beefed up
> performance and support for threads. Unless I completely
> misunderstand things, getting a native win32 port for
> postgresql off the ground will boil down to downloading
> interix and hacking out a configure script...is this correct?
Maybe not quite that easy, but it should be a lot less work from what I
read.

One has to read the license agreements *really* careful, though. Also
any deals on redistribution (can we package a merge module for it along
with the server in a binary distribution, or does i thave to be DLed
from MS for example).

I don't think most Windows admin people will have much problem with
installing a free piece of MS software (after all, we all have to update
our internet explorers etc every other day). But it comes down to what
the actual license will be (can't seem to find it for the new release,
just the announcements to the press) and how much work is still needed
for the port.

Until we know the license, we should probably stick to the current
plans. (Heck, if we get that one running we can even benchmark them
against each other and see if there's a noticeable difference. And if
there is no difference in performance etc, then yes, go with the one
that doesn't require SFU)

//Magnus