From: | "Keith C(dot) Perry" <netadmin(at)vcsn(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Shelby Cain <alyandon(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Uwe C(dot) Schroeder" <uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Edwin New <edwin_new(at)toll(dot)com(dot)au> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? |
Date: | 2005-03-09 20:34:31 |
Message-ID: | 1110400471.422f5dd771d1f@webmail.vcsn.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> Shelby Cain wrote:
>
> >--- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>The problem is, that it's a question of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>perception. Most windows fans don't
> >>
> >>
> >>>see that "their" OS is pretty instable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day
> >and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as
> >unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are
> >referring to the non-NT variations.
> >
> >
> O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However
> there are a couple of things I know.
>
> 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable.
> However there is a caveat, it still can not perform
> under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux
> or other UNIX variants can.
>
> 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and
> performs fairly well under load. However it still
> can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants.
>
> The majority of the problem with Windows in these
> days is people who hire other people with little
> pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable.
>
> A properly managed Windows server can be reliable,
> can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise
> to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference
> is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you
> feel like you have it when you don't.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
>
> >Regards,
> >
> >Shelby Cain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
> >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
> +1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
>
>
The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned
already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is
more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never**
trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if
it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind
another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic.
--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com
____________________________________
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-03-09 20:37:30 | Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only? |
Previous Message | marcelo Cortez | 2005-03-09 20:18:30 | Re: segmentation fault |