Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> ...
> > As near as I can tell, we *could* develop a self-contained installation
> > package for PG+cygwin without any licensing problem.
>
> Right. That was my opinion also. But istm that however the discussion
> settles out, there is a path to success.
These last couple days have really started me thinking about Windows again. I
developed Windows software for over a decade, geez much longer than that, I
wrote my first Windows program using the Windows 1.03 SDK. (I am in a 12 step
program now, but you guys are causing a relapse!)
Listen, here is purely my opinion on the matter, I am speaking from my
experience as a Windows user, developer, and author (Tricks of the Windows 3.1
Masters).
It is useless to spend serious time on a cygwin version. Yea, it is cool and
all, but it won't be used. From the eyes of a Windows user cygwin is a hack and
a mess. An IT guy that only knows Windows will never use it, and if presented
with a program that forces a UNIX like directory tree on their hard drive and
UNIX like tools to manage it, they will delete the program and curse the time
spent installing it.
Performance may also be an issue, I don't know for sure, but it is suspected.
The cygwin fork troubles me as well. It may work, but I would not call it a
"production" technique, how about you? Would you bet your business on cygwin
and a hacked fork()?
No matter what steps you take, cygwin will not be seen by Windows users as
anything but a sloppy/messy/horrible hack. It is a fact of life. You are
welcome to disagree, but I assure you it is true.
From a usefulness perspective, a cygwin version of PostgreSQL will be nothing
more than a proof of concept, a test bed, or a demo. It will never be used as a
serious database. How much work does that warrant?
