Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? - Mailing list pgsql-general

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thinking about it you may be right. I guess I'm misstaking it for something
else. Too many "foxes" out here nowadays :-)

To the topic: I don't argue the benefit of a native windows version from a
marketing point of view (although not so from a technical point of view). As
long as MS hasn't filed a chapter 11 the rest of the world will have to deal
with them. Therefor a native windows version is possibly the only way to make
postgresql more popular and sneak it into the one or other fortune 500
company.

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 09:02 pm, Edwin New wrote:
> I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase?  If
> so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows
> database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).
>
> Edwin New.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:uwe@oss4u.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
> > by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> > encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
> >
> > Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
> > for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done
> > to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them
> > except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.
>
> To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
> Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which
> probably
> is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
> platforms).
> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if
> your
> windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the
> fault
> of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
> backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.
>
> I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
> customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put
> code
>
> like:
>
> if os="win" {
>     errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
>     exit(99);
> }
>
> into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to
> run
> it on windows.
>
> > I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
> > responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
> >
> > Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
>
> users.
>
> >  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
>
> Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years
> ago.
>
> > Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
>
> is
>
> > not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
> > shown to be deficient.
>
> The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
> see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
> community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a
> question
> of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
> customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
> him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
> guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
> MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
> how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and
> is
> back where he was a month ago.
>
> > I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
> > re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
> > far.
>
> It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
> Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
> and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a
> mouse
>
> attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
> and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
> want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
>
>     UC

- --
    UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC    2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone:  +1 650 872 2425        San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell:   +1 650 302 2405        United States
Fax:    +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCLpKajqGXBvRToM4RAjb7AJ96fllQAqY6g6y3XxBzRi682+BvAgCg0XWx
/a9Y4VNCmPUlZQ+xlj1ZmJw=
=cHVW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----