Hi all Do u know that there are huge ammount of PRODUCTION(!!!) Windows NT servers runnini apache , php and mysql? Just because the administrators are lame, or because some companies cant afford more than one server, and before they decided to use Windows NT (because they did not knew about UNIX/Linux/FreeBSD). This is the reality.
One more thing - development for PgSQL is quite dificult just because it does not runs on Windows 9X. There are huge ammount of development servers running Win 9X, IIS, PHP and MySQL. A Windows port for postgres will be great. There were before a postgres installation for wndows but it does not worked properly. Is not important HOW stable will Windows version work. For example MySQL for Win is quite UNSTABLE too. The more important is to be VERY EASY to be installed, that’s all. Nikolay. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Reboots are for hardware upgrades, Found more here: http://www.nmmm.nu Nikolay Mihaylov [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jean-Michel POURE Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 3:37 PM To: mlw Cc: Robert; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgAdmin2 to be included in Dev-C++ Le Vendredi 10 Mai 2002 14:06, mlw a écrit : > Sorry, I'm not interested in a cygwin version of PostgreSQL. I think > it will do more harm than good. If we make it something that people > want to try, and then they TRY it, they will find that is sucks, then > we lose. It is very hard to remove the bad taste in ones mouth of a > poor product. Think Yugo. Cygwin is very stable. Its community is relatively small but very actuve. We could well provide a unique installer to "hide" Cygwin from the user. This can be done compiling Cygwin.dll in a separate user space, as per discussion with Dave Page. > I have no patience with designed to fail projects, certainly not with > my time. PostgreSQL+cygwin is a loser. If I am going to invest my time > and effort, I want it to be great. I agree a native Windows PostgreSQL would be better. > OK, a conscientious developer will explore options. They will install > various systems and try them. Given a cygwin+PostgreSQL system, MSSQL, > MySQL, Oracle, DB2, etc. MSSQL will win. MSSQL will win over Oracle > for cost and ease of setup. DB2 will lose, similarly to Oracle. MySQL > will lose because it sucks. PostgreSQL+cygwin will lose because it > will also suck. MySQL under Windows is based on Cygwin. MySQL sucks and has a 'huge" success. So let's do it in three moves : - first move : gain a large audience providing a stable release of Cygwin + PostgreSQL. This could be done within days ... not weeks. This will be much better than MySQL. - second move : release a bundle of pgAdmin2 + PostgreSQL on http://www.postgresql.org, Bloodshed and other sites. - third move : based on 1.000.000 downloads and 100.000 users, feed the community with more developpers, more ideas and more Windows native source-code. So you wron't say "I am alone". "Rome ne s'est pas faite en une nuit". Cheers, Jean-michel ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
