Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
>>by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we
>>encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>>
>>Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
>>Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to
>>encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except
>>the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that.
>
>
> To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
> Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
> is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
> platforms).
> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
> windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
> of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
> backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.
>
> I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
> customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
> like:
>
> if os="win" {
> errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
> exit(99);
> }
>
> into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
> it on windows.
>
>
>>I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
>>responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>>
>>Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
>> We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
>
>
> Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.
>
>
>>Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
>>not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
>>shown to be deficient.
>
>
> The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
> see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
> community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
> of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
> customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
> him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
> guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
> MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
> how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
> back where he was a month ago.
>
>
>>I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
>>re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
>>far.
>
>
> It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
> Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
> and it's fairly good on the desktop.

according to billy boy himself,
windows is designed " to make it easier and more entertaining for people
to play video games on thier home computer"*
so not even dektop, it was never meant for professional use.

Never trust a server that needs a mouse
> attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
> and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
> want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
>
> UC
>

*Bill Gates in press conference introducing windows 1.0 to the world.

personally, even the nt family, with the absolute requirement of using
video gaming technology, is not a professional os.