Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ow [mailto:oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:39 AM
> To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
>
> --- Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> wrote:
> > Which feature is requested more than that?
>
> Not sure how often features are requested and by whom.
> However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find
> plenty of stuff more important than win32 port.
>
> > Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of
> > market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be
> > important:
> > SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...)
> > DB/2
> > Oracle
> > MySQL
> > Sybase
> > Informix
>
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
> Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but
> I'd suspect the picture is the same. They may claim that they
> have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a
> useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users.

I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000
machine I am typing this message from.
DB/2 7.1
Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5
MySQL 4.0.12
Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0
Informix Dynamic Server 9.2
(Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are
not running right now)

I just use them for development on this machine, but we have literally
thousands of customers with those database systems installed on Win32
and used in production.

> IMHO, core PostgreSQL development should not be sacrificed
> for the sake of win32 port.

A typical window-phobic. Thankfully, cooler heads will prevail.