Thread: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
> -----Original Message----- > From: ow [mailto:oneway_111@yahoo.com] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > > > --- Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote: > > > > 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". > > Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of > things that are much more important than win32 port. Which feature is requested more than that? If you consider the possibility of embedded PostgreSQL, which OS covers the most desktops in the world, by several orders of magnitude? Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be important: SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) DB/2 Oracle MySQL Sybase Informix (Answer: none of them) Maybe they were all mistaken. At the company where I work (CONNX Solutions Inc.) we spent a giant pile of money writing a native port of PostgreSQL 7.1.3 because there were no viable alternatives for what we wanted to do. We would have saved many tens of thousands of dollars if one were available. Now, I imagine other companies might also have their interest piqued if a native port should suddenly appear.
--- Dann Corbit <DCorbit@connx.com> wrote: > Which feature is requested more than that? Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find plenty of stuff more important than win32 port. > Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of > market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be > important: > SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) > DB/2 > Oracle > MySQL > Sybase > Informix Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. They may claim that they have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users. IMHO, core postgreSql development should not be sacrificed for the sake of win32 port. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote: > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product (a remote replication solution for PocketPC applications), Windows is the first class citizen for the database and Unix is definitely second class (can attest to that from first hand experience). We had trouble convincing them that we wanted to run with Postgres as the data repository under Unix. A native win32 port would have helped us out. -rocco
ow wrote: >Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 >or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. > Then you need to get out more. I have seen Oracle, Sybase, DB2 (and probably Informix, I forget) all running on Windows in a number of large enterprise data centers. >They may claim that they have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick >than a useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users. > >IMHO, core postgreSql development should not be sacrificed for the sake of >win32 port. > > > Nobody is sacrificing anything. As usual, people are working on the things that they want to work on. A Win32 port is clearly not important *to*you*. It is to others, and it's going to happen. You might dislike the decision but you need to get over it. If you feel other things are more important feel free to contribute to that work. I am sure the core team will make sure that the Win32 work does not break or degrade the product on Unix, so why the heck should you even care? I'm not a big Windows fan either, but I also live in the real world. I suspect that goes for most of us who want to see this work done. I still don't know why we are even having this discussion. andrew
--- Rocco Altier <roccoa@routescape.com> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote: > > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. > > I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real > thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product iAnywhere is a completely separate product and is *not* a port of Sybase ASE (core db server). IIRC, iAnywhere runs only on Windows, well, maybe they ported it to Linux by now. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote: > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the time. As for Sybase, you don't see that because Sybase on Windows was, for a long time, SQL Server. I do not have any real personal jones to get Postgres on Windows, but that does not make it any less valuable to those who want it, and are apparently doing the work to provide it. From my point of view, we should just encourage the project that is already in motion. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, oneway_111@yahoo.com (ow) wrote:
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
I haven't seen Sybase on Windows (only barely have seen it anywhere,
fitting with the comment made that it hides in the lucrative financial
industry); I _have_ seen Oracle deployed on Windows NT. (I was once
involved with a deployment on Novell Netware, which is _really_ odd,
as platforms go :-).)
That we don't see these things a lot may mean that we are seeing
somewhat "ghettoized" areas of the computer industry. I doubt Sybase
'does Windows' terribly much, but just because I don't see it doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('aa454','freenet.carleton.ca').
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Subject: SETI@home
Or perhaps a better subject title would be, "Watching paint dry, but
geekier."
-- Brian Menyuk
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:18:51PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote: > > > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. > > I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. > They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the > time. > > As for Sybase, you don't see that because Sybase on Windows was, for > a long time, SQL Server. Not exaclty. Sybase 4.21 = MS SQL server 4.21. But then they ended their relationship (much like MS and IBM did over OS/2). This was somewhere around the mid 90's. Since then Sybase has renamed their enterprise product to Adaptive Server Enterprise, and versions 10, 11, 11.5 and beyond have always been available on windows. A few years after they split up with Microsoft, they bought the product SQL Anywhere (forgot the firm they bought it from). It took them a few years to make this product 100% SQL compatible with ASE. This product was ported to some Unix platforms around that time too. -- __________________________________________________ "Nothing is as subjective as reality" Reinoud van Leeuwen reinoud.v@n.leeuwen.net http://www.xs4all.nl/~reinoud __________________________________________________