On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:43:05AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> Hmm... do you just dislike the way I used support? Lets flip it to match
> the original wording:
>
> PostgreSQL 7.4 expands 64 bit support to include AMD Opteron in
> addition to other 64 bit platforms including PA-RISC, Sparc, S/390,
> MIPS, Alpha, and RS6000*
>
> or maybe better is:
>
> PostgreSQL 7.4 expands 64 bit compatibility to include AMD Opteron in
> addition to other 64 bit platforms including PA-RISC, Sparc, S/390,
> MIPS, Alpha, and RS6000*
*I* know what "64 bit compatibility" means, but I have been programming for
20 years.. how many members of the press corps are going to know what that
means? and if someone doesn't know what it means, how likely are they to
look it up or ask someone that knows about these things?
I am sure that, for example, mysql will compile just fine on a 64 bit
platform (given gcc of course), and it may actually run, but that doesn't
mean it has been "tested" or "used in production".. so mysql (oracle, etc)
can claim "64 bit compatibility" just like pg does, and pg doesn't win
anything by using that terminology.
picture this:
reporter: "hi, oracle sales guy: I am doing some research on RDBMS software,
and I am noticing your competitor claims 64 bit compatiblility on x y z new
fangled CPU"
oracle sales guy: "yup! we do that! just pay us!"
etc..
as a test, I just asked a Cisco router guy if he knew what "64 bit
compatibility" means.. and the first question he asked was "in what
context"? I then explained that it was the context of "RDBMS software", and
he was *still* not sure what I was talking about, and didn't see any
benefit.
regards,
J
--
|| Jeff - http://zoidtechnologies.com/
|| GNUPG Fingerprint: A607 0F19 7C75 1305 67E4 BDFF 26BD 606E 3517 2A42
