Horton

Thread

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

    Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> — 2003-11-18T06:52:09Z

    > -----Original Message-----
> From: ow [mailto:oneway_111@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:39 PM
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
> 
> 
> 
> --- Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> > I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 
> 40% of the
> > world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port".
> 
> Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of 
> things that are much more important than win32 port.

Which feature is requested more than that?

If you consider the possibility of embedded PostgreSQL, which OS covers
the most desktops in the world, by several orders of magnitude?

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

(Answer: none of them)

Maybe they were all mistaken.


At the company where I work (CONNX Solutions Inc.) we spent a giant pile
of money writing a native port of PostgreSQL 7.1.3 because there were no
viable alternatives for what we wanted to do.  We would have saved many
tens of thousands of dollars if one were available.  Now, I imagine
other companies might also have their interest piqued if a native port
should suddenly appear.

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

    ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com> — 2003-11-18T16:39:29Z

    --- Dann Corbit <DCorbit@connx.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.

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






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

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

    Rocco Altier <roccoa@routescape.com> — 2003-11-18T16:51:44Z

    On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote:

> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.

I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real
thing.  If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product (a
remote replication solution for PocketPC applications), Windows is the
first class citizen for the database and Unix is definitely second class
(can attest to that from first hand experience).

We had trouble convincing them that we wanted to run with Postgres as the
data repository under Unix.  A native win32 port would have helped us out.

	-rocco

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

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2003-11-18T17:13:37Z

    ow wrote:

>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.
>

Then you need to get out more. I have seen Oracle, Sybase, DB2 (and 
probably Informix, I forget) all running on Windows in a number of large 
enterprise data centers.

>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.
>
>IMHO, core postgreSql development should not be sacrificed for the sake of
>win32 port.
>
>  
>
Nobody is sacrificing anything. As usual, people are working on the 
things that they want to work on.

A Win32 port is clearly not important *to*you*. It is to others, and 
it's going to happen. You might dislike the decision but you need to get 
over it. If you feel other things are more important feel free to 
contribute to that work.

I am sure the core team will make sure that the Win32 work does not 
break or degrade the product on Unix, so why the heck should you even 
care? I'm not a big Windows fan either, but I also live in the real 
world. I suspect that goes for most of us who want to see this work done.

I still don't know why we are even having this discussion.


andrew

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

    ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com> — 2003-11-18T17:15:35Z

    --- Rocco Altier <roccoa@routescape.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote:
> 
> > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
> 
> I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real
> thing.  If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product

iAnywhere is a completely separate product and is *not* a port of Sybase ASE
(core db server). IIRC, iAnywhere runs only on Windows, well, maybe they ported
it to Linux by now.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

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

    Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> — 2003-11-18T17:18:51Z

    On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote:
> 
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. 

I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. 
They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the
time.

As for Sybase, you don't see that because Sybase on Windows was, for
a long time, SQL Server.  

I do not have any real personal jones to get Postgres on Windows, but
that does not make it any less valuable to those who want it, and are
apparently doing the work to provide it.  From my point of view, we
should just encourage the project that is already in motion.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

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

    Reinoud van Leeuwen <reinoud.v@n.leeuwen.net> — 2003-11-18T17:40:40Z

    On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:18:51PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote:
> > 
> > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. 
> 
> I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. 
> They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the
> time.
> 
> As for Sybase, you don't see that because Sybase on Windows was, for
> a long time, SQL Server.  

Not exaclty. Sybase 4.21 = MS SQL server 4.21. But then they ended their 
relationship (much like MS and IBM did over OS/2). This was somewhere 
around the mid 90's. Since then Sybase has renamed their enterprise 
product to Adaptive Server Enterprise, and versions 10, 11, 11.5 and 
beyond have always been available on windows.

A few years after they split up with Microsoft, they bought the product 
SQL Anywhere (forgot the firm they bought it from). It took them a few 
years to make this product 100% SQL compatible with ASE. This product was 
ported to some Unix platforms around that time too. 

-- 
__________________________________________________
"Nothing is as subjective as reality"
Reinoud van Leeuwen    reinoud.v@n.leeuwen.net
http://www.xs4all.nl/~reinoud
__________________________________________________

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

    Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> — 2003-11-18T17:43:10Z

    A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, oneway_111@yahoo.com (ow) wrote:
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. 

I haven't seen Sybase on Windows (only barely have seen it anywhere,
fitting with the comment made that it hides in the lucrative financial
industry); I _have_ seen Oracle deployed on Windows NT.  (I was once
involved with a deployment on Novell Netware, which is _really_ odd,
as platforms go :-).)

That we don't see these things a lot may mean that we are seeing
somewhat "ghettoized" areas of the computer industry.  I doubt Sybase
'does Windows' terribly much, but just because I don't see it doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.
-- 
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('aa454','freenet.carleton.ca').
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Subject: SETI@home
Or perhaps a  better subject title would  be, "Watching paint dry, but
geekier."
-- Brian Menyuk