Thread: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com] > Sent: 30 January 2003 19:20 > To: Lamar Owen > Cc: Tom Lane; Dave Page; Ron Mayer; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System > > > I've > been on both sides know that the windows user/developer > doesn't hold things to the same standards as the unix user/developer. I ought to plonk you for a comment like that. Especially coming from the person who's crap I've been trying to sort out for the last couple of months. > Since you're pretty much ignoring my reasoning, I'll give you > the same consideration. The history of windows as a platform > has shown itself to be rather fragile compared to unix. When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable enough. > Before you respond to this, read Tom Lane's response and > reply to that. *I* did. I volunteered to do some more of the testing we're all so resistant. Dave.
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote: > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable > enough. I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest software audience in the world were completely ignored. Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to make money; they're even obligated to do so. -- Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net> Copeland Computer Consulting
Greg Copeland wrote: > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote: > > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as > > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as > > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable > > enough. > > I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on > something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero > to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market > is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share > holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest > software audience in the world were completely ignored. > > Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting > any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to > make money; they're even obligated to do so. That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation? More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix* community? The answer, I think, is no. And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a native Windows port to the world. Of course, you could argue that Oracle and IBM didn't have much of a reputation anyway, and I wouldn't be able to say much to that. :-) -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com] > > Sent: 30 January 2003 19:20 > > To: Lamar Owen > > Cc: Tom Lane; Dave Page; Ron Mayer; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System > > > > > > I've > > been on both sides know that the windows user/developer > > doesn't hold things to the same standards as the unix user/developer. > > I ought to plonk you for a comment like that. Especially coming from the > person who's crap I've been trying to sort out for the last couple of > months. Grow up Dave. That shit doesn't belong on this or any other list. If you didn't want to do something, you shouldn't have volunteered to do it. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.
Kevin Brown wrote: > > Greg Copeland wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote: > > > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as > > > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as > > > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable > > > enough. > > > > I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on > > something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero > > to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market > > is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share > > holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest > > software audience in the world were completely ignored. > > > > Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting > > any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to > > make money; they're even obligated to do so. > > That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has > their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation? > More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix* > community? The answer, I think, is no. > > And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the > reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a > native Windows port to the world. More to the point, does the unreliable Cygwin port possibly do our reputation any good? It is known to crash with corruptions under less than heavy load. Looking at the arguments so far, nearly everyone who questions the Win32 port must be vehemently against the Cygwin stuff anyway. So that camp should be happy to see it flushed down the toilet. And the pro-Win32 people want the native version because they are unhappy with the stepchild-Cygwin stuff too, so they won't care too much. Anyone here who likes the Cygwin port or can we yank it out right now? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Looking at the arguments so far, nearly everyone who questions the Win32
> port must be vehemently against the Cygwin stuff anyway. So that camp
> should be happy to see it flushed down the toilet. And the pro-Win32
> people want the native version because they are unhappy with the
> stepchild-Cygwin stuff too, so they won't care too much.
What is interesting is that the MySQL folk don't seem to be vehemently against
it, as a look at their downloads pages indicate that they depend on Cygwin for
the Windows port of their product.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html
"What did we agree about a leader??"
"We agreed we wouldn't have one."
"Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."