eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 08:40:27PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Graeme Merrall wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
> > > > number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
> > > > easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
> > > >
> > > > I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
> > > > as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?
> > > Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
> > > make; make install'
> > >
> > > Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but
> >
> > huh? all i do is './configure;make;make install' ...
>
> And what about CVS?
>
> bash-2.01$ cd ../pgsql
> bash-2.01$ cvs -z9 update -dP
> cvs [update aborted]: authorization failed: server postgresql.org rejected
> access
> bash-2.01$
What does "echo $CVS_RSH" report? Marc is an Admin, not a
Wannabe. So access is restricted to ssh connections and cvs
uses rsh by default. If you tell me that MySQL's CVS is
accessible with rsh, let's think of a totally different way
to get rid of this entire discussion ...
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
