I'd have to say that personally, given a choice between expending effort
to fix current know bugs and add known needed features, and expending
effort to port to Windows, I'd pick the former, not the latter.
I could personally care less if postgresql ever runs as a native window
application, since I personally don't believe windows is a suitable OS for
hosting a dbms.
Note that the "portablility problems" in postgresql are and were
introduced by Windows deciding to do everything different than every other
OS. Postgresql is quite portable, when one is porting it to OSes that
aren't windows, like VMS, MVS, or all the different flavors of Unix.
Besides, in another 5 years, Windows as a server OS will likely be the
shrinking percentage, while Linux/BSD et. al. will be growing. focus on
the future, and let Windows wither and die (in the server room) as it
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, James Hubbard wrote:
> I don't normally post to this list, but have a crazy suggestion that is a
> little farfetched.
> Fix the portability problems so that there is a Windows native version of
> PostgreSQL. Then offer the Open Office organization PostgreSQL as the
> project's database. This would increase the user base my leaps and bounds.
> The problem is that using and administrating PostgreSQL can be complex. Also,
> some people may automatically assume that PostgreSQL is a low end database not
> capable of doing more than being used as a backend for a free office app. Of
> course we all know better.
> Maybe a PostgreSQL-Lite would be a better idea. One that condenses the main
> code down to something easy, that a desktop user could use, but maintain the
> strength of the core code. I suppose that means creating another project.
> Here are just a few links that I've come across recently:
> How-to for using Open Office and unixODBC
> Others are considering MySQL.
> James Hubbard
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > IMO One of the big reasons that MySQL is viewed as being better is it's
> > percieved simplicity. It has a large following because of this, and many
> > of them are not experienced database users, in fact just the opposite.
> > This large user base is perhaps the best marketing that an open source
> > project can hope for. So I think that if we want to attract more users
> > we should try to make postgres easier to use. The hard part is how to do
> > this without sacrificing the integrity of the project. I think for
> > starters when evaluating the next feature we want to work on we ask the
> > following questions:
> > 1) Does it make it easier to use for a non-dba ?
> > 2) Does it facilitate making web-applications easier ( assuming that
> > this is the largest user base ) ?
> > 3) I'm sure there are others, but at the moment I can't come up with
> > them.
> > Then if faced with a choice of implementing something which is going to
> > make postgres more technically complete or something which is going to
> > appeal to more users we lean towards more users. Note I said lean!
> > Dave
> > On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 01:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> >>>Frankly, my feeling is, as a "geek-to-geek" product, PostgreSQL is already
> >>>adequately marketed through our huge network of DBA users and code
> >>Well, mumble ... it seems to me that we are definitely suffering from
> >>a "buzz gap" (cf missile gap, Dr Strangelove, etc) compared to MySQL.
> >>That doesn't bother me in itself, but the long-term implications are
> >>scary. If MySQL manages to attract a larger development community as
> >>a consequence of more usage or better marketing, then eventually they
> >>will be ahead of us on features and every other measure that counts.
> >>Once we're number two with no prayer of catching up, how long will our
> >>project remain viable? So, no matter how silly you might think
> >>"MySQL is better" is today, you've got to consider the prospect that
> >>it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> >>So far I have not worried about that scenario too much, because Monty
> >>has always treated the MySQL sources as his personal preserve; if he
> >>hadn't written it or closely reviewed it, it didn't get in, and if it
> >>didn't hew closely to his opinion of what's important, it didn't get in.
> >>But I get the impression that he's loosened up of late. If MySQL stops
> >>being limited by what one guy can do or review, their rate of progress
> >>could improve dramatically.
> >>In short: we could use an organized marketing effort. I really
> >>feel the lack of Great Bridge these days; there isn't anyone with
> >>comparable willingness to expend marketing talent and dollars on
> >>promoting Postgres as such. Not sure what to do about it. We've
> >>sort of dismissed Jean-Michel's comments (and those of others in
> >>the past) with "sure, step right up and do the marketing" responses.
> >>But the truth of the matter is that a few amateurs with no budget
> >>won't make much of an impression. We really need some professionals
> >>with actual dollars to spend, and I don't know where to find 'em.
> >> regards, tom lane
> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> >> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
"Force has no place where there is need of skill.", "Haste in every
business brings failures.", "This is the bitterest pain among men, to have
much knowledge but no power." -- Herodotus
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2002-06-25 17:36:32|
|Subject: Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a|
|Previous:||From: James Hubbard||Date: 2002-06-25 16:47:45|
|Subject: Re: Democracy and organisation : let's make a revolution|