Thread

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

   Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> — 2003-01-29T17:14:52Z

   
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com] 
   > Sent: 29 January 2003 17:10
   > 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:
   > 
   > > I would be interested to know how many windows servers 
   > those that are 
   > > against a windows port of PostgreSQL have or do manage, and how 
   > > experienced they are with that platform...
   > 
   > At this point I'm not for or against.  But you're going to 
   > have to do more than a weeks worth of unscientific testing to 
   > prove your point and move from assumptions to facts.
   
   No problem with that. Likewise however, it'd be nice if people weren't
   against the windows port until testing had proved it didn't work
   properly. Would we have the same general reactions to a revived VMS port
   or one for OS/2 (not counting Tom's which is an valid concern over a
   specific issue)? I suspect not...
   
   Regards, Dave.
   
   

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

   Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2003-01-29T17:26:02Z

   On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   
   >
   >
   > > -----Original Message-----
   > > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com]
   > > Sent: 29 January 2003 17:10
   > > 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:
   > >
   > > > I would be interested to know how many windows servers
   > > those that are
   > > > against a windows port of PostgreSQL have or do manage, and how
   > > > experienced they are with that platform...
   > >
   > > At this point I'm not for or against.  But you're going to
   > > have to do more than a weeks worth of unscientific testing to
   > > prove your point and move from assumptions to facts.
   >
   > No problem with that. Likewise however, it'd be nice if people weren't
   > against the windows port until testing had proved it didn't work
   > properly. Would we have the same general reactions to a revived VMS port
   > or one for OS/2 (not counting Tom's which is an valid concern over a
   > specific issue)? I suspect not...
   
   VMS and OS/2 have proven track records of being rugged.  Windows has
   always had a reputation of being fragile.  And yes, I have extensive
   experience with all three.
   
   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.