Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > Without some buy-in from the core team, I'm not sure I am willing to spend
> > my time on it. If someone would be willing to fund the 100 or so man-hours
> > required to do it, then that would be a different story.
>
> I suggest we focuss on providing a minimal PostgreSQL + Cygwin layer at first.
> This will give you the required user base to transform PostgreSQL into a
> multi-platform RDBMS.
Sorry, I'm not interested in a cygwin version of PostgreSQL. I think it will do
more harm than good. If we make it something that people want to try, and then
they TRY it, they will find that is sucks, then we lose. It is very hard to
remove the bad taste in ones mouth of a poor product. Think Yugo.
I have no patience with designed to fail projects, certainly not with my time.
PostgreSQL+cygwin is a loser. If I am going to invest my time and effort, I
want it to be great.
Put it this way. The run of the mill Windows developer will be using MSDN. With
MSDN comes MSSQL. To the developer, it is largely free to setup MSSQL to do
development work.
OK, a conscientious developer will explore options. They will install various
systems and try them. Given a cygwin+PostgreSQL system, MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle,
DB2, etc. MSSQL will win. MSSQL will win over Oracle for cost and ease of
setup. DB2 will lose, similarly to Oracle. MySQL will lose because it sucks.
PostgreSQL+cygwin will lose because it will also suck.
The idea is to "sway" Microsoft developers to open source, not give them
ammunition of why they think it sucks.
