Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable
> > enough.
>
> I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on
> something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero
> to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market
> is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share
> holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest
> software audience in the world were completely ignored.
>
> Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting
> any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to
> make money; they're even obligated to do so.
That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has
their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation?
More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix*
community? The answer, I think, is no.
And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the
reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a
native Windows port to the world.
Of course, you could argue that Oracle and IBM didn't have much of a
reputation anyway, and I wouldn't be able to say much to that. :-)
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
