Re: PostgreSQL Windows port strategy

>>>Vatamanescu Victor said:
> Well, I havent seen much that unstable API. If you saw something unstable pl
ease provide me source code that proves Windows API is unstable. Don't tel
l me about some "expert"'s oppinion: if you have a problem with Windows sh
ow it to me. We are not users here.

Really? We ARE users of Windows here. Nobody has ever bothered to tell US how
this thing works, why it works and what can we, users do when it doesn't work.

I am talking about the Windows API here, with it's numerous variants and
'Service Packs'. I have learned my lesson on Windows: use only default
configurations, anything else will bite you badly some day.

(this is not to say that you can't get the same effect on other platforms,
just that on most 'commercial' UNIX platforms some things are very detailed
documented - sometimes too much in detail)

> I agree that Windows 95/98 was a sh...
, but I have news for you: Windows is becomming stronger every day. In 199
8-1999 we could talk about the dying Microsoft - they were null on the ser
ver platform and the growth of Linux seemed unlimited. Can you tell me tha
t the situation is the same? Have you carrefully tested Windows 2003?

You are wrong about Microsoft here. They were null on the server platform, say
at 1985, when their wonderful product "Microsoft BASIC" was my favorite on the
Apple ][. Then IBM gave them the IBM PC to write an 'OS' for it.

I don't claim to be an expert on Windows, although I have actually 'tested'
(both from the user's perspective and usability as 'platform') every Windows
release since 1.03.

> About reinstalling: at home I have a Pentium III 1 ghz workstation. OS: Wind
ows XP. I have installed on it Visual Studio .NET, Visual Studio 6, Micros
oft SQL Server, IBM DB2, Cygwin, IIS, MSMQ etc etc(you got the picture). I
installed it about 9 months ago (when I bought the hdd) and I dont have a
ny trouble with it, I hadn't to reinstall it after a month...

But rebooted it how many times?

I have never ever reinstalled a UNIX system. Some run for years (yes, that is
some N x 365 days) without being reboot or powered down. They usually stop
when that same flaky PC hardware breaks, and I have to build new system then
anyway.

> By the way, DB2 has no problem working on Windows. I havent heard IBM callin
g Windows a "B category platform", on the contrary...

I was trying to avoid this part of the discussion... mostly because I don't
believe PostgreSQL is yet able to compete with the 'big' database systems.
Here I mean BIG database systems. One of the reasons in my opinion is that
those guys that run their data on big iron just can't explain why they will
spend millions of dollars a year on OS licenses and still want to install an
open-source database there.

It seems you got my opinion wrong: I don't see anything wrong with running
PostgreSQL on Windows. In fact, I have been considering such port some time
ago (or alternatively a 'DOS' port :), because this allows greater flexibility
in certain cases. However, moving main development effort on Windows, just to
satisfy the Windows lovers' ego would be catastrophic and simply will not
happen to PostgreSQL. One of the reasons this will not happen is because
PostgreSQL has already grown, has become quality software and many people
already know how it runs on the SAME Intel hardware on which Windows runs.

The difference with DB2 that runs on IBM other platforms is significant for
the same reason. When it fails at your data set on the Windows platform, IBM
can always tell you "but,... this is because of the cheap and flaky PC
hardware - here is what this wonderful software is designed to run on.."