Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
>>> Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on
>>> dozens of
>>> OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a
>>> pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't
>>> mean it's
>>> useful.
>>
>>
>> I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of
>> the world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port".
>>
>> It could conveivably double Postgres's target audience, could attract
>> heaps of new users, new developers, new companies and put us in a
>> better position to compete with MySQL.
>>
>> I think it's actually a necessary port to keep the project alive in
>> the long term.
>
>
> Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform
> to run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers
> who work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely
> used desktop environment. My former company would have loved the
> win32 port for exactly this reason, even though most of our servers
> were FreeBSD / Linux.
And my former company produced software that ran on Windows and *nix. We
would have loved to be able to ship PostgreSQL as our reference
database, but could not because there was no native Windows port.
We've been over this ground before. It might not be important to some
people but it is important for a hell of a lot of others.
cheers
andrew
