Thread

1. Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

   Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> — 2003-01-29T16:40:24Z

   
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com] 
   > Sent: 29 January 2003 16:36
   > To: Dave Page
   > Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
   > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
   > 
   > 
   > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   > 
   > >
   > >
   > > > -----Original Message-----
   > > > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com]
   > > > Sent: 29 January 2003 16:27
   > > > To: Katie Ward
   > > > Cc: Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
   > > > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > 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.
   > >
   > > I hammered the betas on a couple of test boxes running 
   > Windows XP and 
   > > .NET Server of various (pre)releases and found it to be rock solid, 
   > > performing comparably to my Linux based systems. The Cygwin version 
   > > fell over quite quickly under the same tests.
   > >
   > > I'll admit my methods were not particularly scientific, but 
   > over the 
   > > last few weeks I've had far more grief from DB2 and SQL 
   > Server than I 
   > > did from the PostgreSQL native betas.
   > 
   > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength 
   > solution".
   
   Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
   prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,
   industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000
   and DB2 installations I have here.
   
   Regards, Dave.
   
   

2. Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

   Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2003-01-29T16:44:49Z

   On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   
   > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
   > > solution".
   >
   > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
   > prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,
   > industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000
   > and DB2 installations I have here.
   
   Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred
   clients loose on it.  I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that.
   
   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.
   
   
   

3. Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

   Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com> — 2003-01-31T01:52:50Z

   Vince Vielhaber wrote:
   > 
   > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   > 
   > > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
   > > > solution".
   > >
   > > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
   > > prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,
   > > industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000
   > > and DB2 installations I have here.
   > 
   > Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred
   > clients loose on it.  I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that.
   
   You have what? I have "never" seen a Win2K *production* system throwing
   a bluescreen that was not caused by a hardware fault. And if the systems
   you are referring to have any of this 
   
       - soundcard
       - "state OFF the art" graphics adapter
       - joystuck or gamepet
       - ACPI HAL
   
   you aren't talking about production systems and just disqualified the
   probably highly overpaid IDIOT who installed them. Highly overpaid
   because if he got more than the negative of the project cost, it was too
   much.
   
   What I see reading this thread is the typical "release early" problem.
   People have tried Windows 3.1, they "know" Windows is crap ... from
   experience! People have had problems with Windows NT 3.51 and "know"
   Windows NT is crap ... from experience! I don't exclude myself from that
   group, I had tried MS-DOS 3.21 and I "knew" Microsoft OS's are crap ...
   from experience! It took 15 years and some serious multi-million
   projects before I reevaluated my opinion. 
   
   Windows 2000 by itself is an industrial strength, stable operating
   system. Don't let it get in touch with hard- and software your server
   doesn't need, give it the hardware your business deserves, and you'll
   have a robust and reliable system you can trust.
   
   
   Jan
   
   -- 
   #======================================================================#
   # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
   # Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
   #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #