Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com [mailto:pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
>> To: Tom Lane
>> Cc: Dann Corbit; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD;
>> jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com; tswan(at)idigx(dot)com; Bruce Momjian; Greg
>> Stark; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>>
>>
>> > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
>> >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
>> times as many
>> >> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX
>> >> flavors
>> >
>> > I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
>> > running those should know better than to use Windows, and
>> if they do
>> > not, I'll be happy to tell them so.
>
> I know better than to tell people to change their operating system.
> Linux is a great OS, and people familiar with it will do exceedingly
> well. But there are 40 million computers sold in a year, most of which
> have some flavor of Windows installed.

How many billions of cigarettes are sold? How many Big Macs? Popularity
does not imply quality or safety.

> People know how to use and
> administer them, and they have all their applications in Windows. They
> are not going to change for ideological reasons.

This is interesting, since when is ideology *not* the american way? Have
you looked at politics lately?

> Also, it isn't just
> DBAs that need to implement database systems. Suppose, for instance,
> that I want to write an accounting package. I can use PostgreSQL as a
> base and save my customers thousands of dollars. If I tell them, "Now,
> you need to reformat your machine and install Linux" that would not be
> very popular. But they don't even need to know about the database. And
> they should not have to care about the OS. A database and an operating
> system are both things to help get work done. Believe it or not, lots
> of large companies depend on Windows OS.

I've been in the trenches for a while now, and I haven't met a single CIO
that is comfortable with Windows. They hate the cost, they hate the
viruses, they hate the instability. The only thing they hate more is being
isolated on an island. Fortunately Linux is becoming less obscure.

>
> Personally, I am technology neutral. My position is "use whatever you
> like."

I would call myself "neutral" to a point, but when I have to give advice,
I have to tell the truth. A little Linux goes a long way.

>
>> This is a prejudice that we should try to avoid. Yes, Windows
>> is lacking on so many levels, but that really isn't the point.
>
> Every OS has advantages and disadvantages.

Some more than other.

> The applications for Windows
> are many and mature. The tool sets available for Linux are extensive
> and usually free. If you want real 24x7x365.25 then MVS cannot be beat.
> The file versioning and protections of OpenVMS are something that all
> operating systems should have modeled.
>
>> A good box running Win2K or XP Server, with no internet
>> connectivity, and no user applications, can really perform
>> and be reliable. Would I choose this? Hell no, but there are
>> HUGE amount of people who either don't know any better or
>> have no real choice.
>
> And there are knowledgeable people who understand Windows, Linux and
> many other operating systems who choose Windows because it is the best
> choice for their company.

I seriously do not know anyone, including myself, that would choose
Windows on technical merrits alone. I know some need to choose it for
"killer" application requirements, but not on merrit.

As for best choice for their company, I can't even say that with a
straight face.

>
>> The REAL bonus here is getting PostgreSQL in their hands.
>> Right now, for the small to medium business running Windows,
>> Microsoft has a virtual lock with SQL Server. SQL Server is
>> expensive and a real PAIN.
>
> It is expensive and a multi-user system ramps the cost. But it is
> easier to administer than PostgreSQL. Hopefully, autovacuum will remove
> most of this discrepancy.

Having dealt with both, as well as MySQL, DB2, and Oracle, I not sure I
agree with that statement. As long as MSSQL is installed correctly the
first time, it may be OK.

>
>> Giving Windows users PostgreSQL with a good set of .NET,
>> ODBC, and JDBC drivers loosens the Microsoft stranglehold,
>> just a little bit. If they develop their application with
>> MSSQL, there is a good chance it will never use any open
>> source software and always run on Windows. If they develop
>> their application using PostgreSQL, there is a better
>> likelyhood that other open source projects will be used, AND
>> that should the requirement be to upgrade the system, a wider
>> range of OS and hardware options will present themselves.
>
> Microsoft dominates because they offer real value (the world is not
> completely full of idiot CEOs -- they make decisions based on profit).

FACT: Microsoft dominates because they break the law.

> The open source community is closing the gap, but it has a long way to
> go. I don't see Microsoft as the dark side of the force or anything.

Then you have not had your company stomped on by them. You have not worked
on technologies like "Go Computing."

> Actually, the approach of PostgreSQL and ACE is (too me) the most
> superior. The GPL approach is far too confining, and getting a black
> box that will be a terrible mystery if it breaks are not nearly so
> pleasant.

GPL vs BSD is a long debate.

>
> Instead of telling people how to do their jobs, I suggest the approach
> of providing the best possible tools and letting them decide how to use
> them.

We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we are bound by
our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.