On Tue, 7 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> It'd be worth trying to understand cygwin issues in detail before we
> sign up to do and support a native Windows port. I understand the
> user-friendliness objection to cygwin (though one would think proper
> packaging might largely hide cygwin from naive Windows users). What I
> don't understand is whether there are any serious performance lossages
> from it, and if so whether we could work around them.
Actually, there are licensing issues involved ... we could never put a
'windows binary' up for anon-ftp, since to distribute it would require the
cygwin.dll to be distributed, and to do that, there is a licensing cost
... of course, I guess we could require ppl to download cygwin seperately,
install that, then install the binary over top of that ...
