Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
>
> Le Vendredi 10 Mai 2002 14:06, mlw a écrit :
> > 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.
>
> Cygwin is very stable. Its community is relatively small but very actuve. We
> could well provide a unique installer to "hide" Cygwin from the user. This
> can be done compiling Cygwin.dll in a separate user space, as per discussion
> with Dave Page.
Here are the problems with cygwin:
(1) GNU license issues.
(2) Does not work well with anti-virus software
(3) Since OS level copy-on-write is negated, process creation is much slower.
(4) Since OS level copy-on-write is negated, memory that otherwise would not be
allocated to the process is forced to be allocated when the parent process data
is copied.
As a product manager, I would not commit to using a cygwin application in
production. Do you know of any long-uptime systems using cygwin? PostgreSQL
would need to run for months. I would view it as a risk.
Lastly, a Windows program is expected to be a Windows program. Native paths
need to be used, like C:\My Database, D:\My Postgres, or something like that.
Native tools must be used to manage it.
>
> > I have no patience with designed to fail projects, certainly not with my
> MySQL under Windows is based on Cygwin.
> MySQL sucks and has a 'huge" success.
Define "Success"
>
> So let's do it in three moves :
>
> - first move : gain a large audience providing a stable release of Cygwin +
> PostgreSQL. This could be done within days ... not weeks. This will be much
> better than MySQL.
No interest in cygwin, sorry.
