Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

*sigh*

Often there isn't a choice of OS. If I am selling to a large enterprise
whose corporate standards say they will only run Windows in their data
center, my chances of getting them to make an exception are none. But my
chances of getting them to install Pg just for my application are far
greater. Would I prefer *nix? You betcha. Would I break a deal over it? No.
Would I prefer to be able to recommend Pg over, say, Oracle, or MS-SQL?
Absolutely. I'm not alone.

I don't care how it's built. I have a lot of sympathy for the folks saying
make the build process universal, rather than having a special one for
Windows. Requiring cygwin shouldn't be a big deal. You aren't going to get a
sudden flood of *nix-ignorant windows developers rushing in, no matter what
you do.

I've been mildly surprised and disappointed by the venom I detect in this
thread. I want to be able to recommend a single Db to my customers no matter
what OS they run. MySQL just doesn't do it, SAPdB is a nightmare, Pg is my
last hope other than a proprietary system. If you are an OpenSource zealot,
think of this as an opportunity to get some into places where it is often
anaethema.

cheers

andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtcapital(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

> tom lane wrote:
> > <flame on>
> > In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that
> > they're not running on the "poor stepchild" platform.
>
> We should distinguish between "poor stepchild" from a client support
> perspective and a production environment perspective.
>
> What is the downside to supporting development of client products
> better? That is what I am really suggesting.
>
> If people are deciding what open-source database server they want to
> use, Linux or FreeBSD is the obvious choice for the server OS. The kind
> of people who are inclined to use PostgreSQL or MySQL will mostly NOT be
> considering Windows servers.
>
>
> > I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people
> > can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But
> > let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength
> > solution; nor give any level of support that might lead
> > others to make such confusion.
>
> All we can do is simply to make it clear that Windows
> is not recommended for production server use and outline
> all the reasons why Windows sucks for that purpose.
>
> Beyond that, if people want to shoot themselves in the head, they will
> do so and I don't see much point in trying to stop them.
>
>
> > The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to
> > buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. <flame off>
>
> <flame retardent on>
> How does providing a native Windows executable that doesn't require
> Cygwin accomplish your objective. It seems to me that you are going to
> have the problem if you release a native version irrespective of the
> issue at hand (Visual C++ project support).
>
> I don't see how making it easier to build adds to this problem.
>
> I also don't see how making it harder for Windows client developer to
> adopt PostgreSQL helps anyone. <flame retardent off>
>
> I hate Microsoft and I don't like Windows, but I am forced to use it
> because the software we need to run our business runs only on
> Windows. I use Unix whenever possible and whenever reliability is
> required.
>
> - Curtis
>
> P.S. The lack of a real C++ client library that supports the most common
> development environment out there is another problem that seriously
> impedes Windows client developers.
>
> I like libpqxx, Jeroen did a find job. However, one needs to
> jump through hoops to get it to run on Visual C++ 6.0 at
> the moment.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster