Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Katie Ward wrote:

> > <flame on>
> > In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that they're not
> > running on the "poor stepchild" platform. If we go down that path,
> > they'll start trying to run production databases on Windows, and then
> > we'll get blamed for the instability of the platform, not to mention
> > the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike
> > critical primitives.
> >
> > I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use
> > to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not
> > confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level
> > of support that might lead others to make such confusion.
> >
> > The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into
> > making Windows a grade-A platform, either.
> > <flame off>
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
> Wow. I've been listening to the pros and cons for a while, and they've been
> really interesting. However, to assume without ever using the native
> Windows port that it is automatically a "poor stepchild" is unbelievable.
>
> I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an industrial-strength
> solution. I challenge you all to prove me wrong, but until you do, please
> lay off the assumptions.

The only assumption I see being made here is this:

"I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an
industrial-strength solution."

I see no evidence to support this claim. If you have this evidence,
feel free to share it with the rest of us.

Vince.
--
Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.