Re: How much work is a native Windows application?

cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
> > cbbrowne(at)cbbrowne(dot)com wrote:
> >>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
> >>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
> >>> we should write a real Win32 version.
> >>
> >> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>
> >> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real
> >> Win32 version. That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who
> >> is interested.
>
> > I have already said that I am willing to write the pieces for a
> > Windows port. The issue is changes in PostgreSQL required to do it.
>
> No, I don't think you understand.
>
> If you're planning to do a port, then _all_ changes are your
> responsibility. Nobody ought to need to change PostgreSQL in order for
> you to write a Windows port; that, in fact, would be a waste of time,
> having several people working on something that should probably be done
> by one person.

Who said PostgreSQL shall not support any other OS than *NIX
or things that look alike?

When I first used Postgres, it still had a VMS port. Well,
we dropped the VMS port at some point, when we where pretty
sure it was broken and nobody complained.

Now we face the fact that Microsoft managed to create
something useful (other than a joystick or optical mouse, I
mean Win2K). And as a logical consequence more and more
people ask for support of their OS.

A good deal of effort in the original Postgres was about
portability. I hope we've not become a UNIX-only show.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #