> Dave Page wrote:
> I don't expect 99% of PostgreSQL/Win32 users to be developers. I hope
we
> see a myriad of apps built around a bundled PostgreSQL server, as well
> as more advanced users looking to replace Access etc.
Actually, that is a very good point. It would put my mind at ease wrt
to SFU if the provided a lightweight runtime to install instead of being
forced to do the whole sdk. Also, sfu does not run on xp home as well
as entire 9x series.
It would be hard to suggest sfu unless there was a reasonable approach
to making a binary installer.
> What would scare me more is Microsoft changing the licencing terms in
> the future. They already added anti open source clauses to the licence
> of one of their products (iirc it was the Mobile Information Server
> SDK).
That would be pretty low, even for Microsoft :) sfu is essentially an
OpenBSD distro plus a bunch of kernel drivers to handle the sys calls.
There is a lot of speculation on Slashdot about why MS decided to give
this away. My own personal feeling is they are trying to stamp out the
'except for application x' syndrome. (Linux penetrates IT shops because
they need it to run that one critical app that hasn't been ported to
windows. Windows IT admins then get exposure to Linux and use it to
save 600$ in the future.)
The real spoiler though, is performance, MS will be able to write a high
performance POSIX layer, much faster than any community written project.
(I have no idea how fast sfu does run, so time will tell).
Merlin