From: | Graeme Merrall <graeme(at)inetix(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slashdot discussion |
Date: | 2000-07-10 23:19:47 |
Message-ID: | 396A5A13.351CEF95@inetix.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Is anyone else noticing this: Everytime this sort of thing comes up a
> number of people invariably tell that they are using MySQL because it's
> easier to install, and that PostgreSQL is difficult ("a pain") to install.
>
> I've studied the MySQL installation instructions, and they don't strike me
> as inherently simpler. Is it only perception, or what can we do better?
Possibly because for most people the process is a simple './configure;
make; make install'
Pgsql doesn't do this. Not the install process is any less better but
more because pgsql is a different beast and it's desifgned to work
differently. Just as (say) you can't install Oracle the same way as
MySQL, you can't install pgsql the same way either. The price of freedom
is enternal vigilance or in our case, the price of a more powerful DB is
a harder install :)
I had the ermm.. joy of installing Oracle in a dev situation and that
was much tricker then a pgsql install. env vars, directory set up -
sheesh :)
Cheers,
Graeme
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | DAROLD Gilles | 2000-07-10 23:21:11 | Re: Slashdot discussion |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-07-10 23:16:31 | Re: pg_backup symlink? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | DAROLD Gilles | 2000-07-10 23:21:11 | Re: Slashdot discussion |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-07-10 23:16:31 | Re: pg_backup symlink? |