Обсуждение: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

tom lane wrote:
> <flame on>
> In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that
> they're not running on the "poor stepchild" platform.

We should distinguish between "poor stepchild" from a client support
perspective and a production environment perspective.

What is the downside to supporting development of client products
better? That is what I am really suggesting.

If people are deciding what open-source database server they want to
use, Linux or FreeBSD is the obvious choice for the server OS. The kind
of people who are inclined to use PostgreSQL or MySQL will mostly NOT be
considering Windows servers.


> I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people
> can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops.  But 
> let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength 
> solution; nor give any level of support that might lead 
> others to make such confusion.

All we can do is simply to make it clear that Windows
is not recommended for production server use and outline
all the reasons why Windows sucks for that purpose.

Beyond that, if people want to shoot themselves in the head, they will
do so and I don't see much point in trying to stop them.


> The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to
> buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. <flame off>

<flame retardent on>
How does providing a native Windows executable that doesn't require
Cygwin accomplish your objective. It seems to me that you are going to
have the problem if you release a native version irrespective of the
issue at hand (Visual C++ project support).

I don't see how making it easier to build adds to this problem.

I also don't see how making it harder for Windows client developer to
adopt PostgreSQL helps anyone. <flame retardent off>

I hate Microsoft and I don't like Windows, but I am forced to use it
because the software we need to run our business runs only on 
Windows. I use Unix whenever possible and whenever reliability is
required.

- Curtis

P.S. The lack of a real C++ client library that supports the most common
development environment out there is another problem that seriously
impedes Windows client developers.

I like libpqxx, Jeroen did a find job. However, one needs to 
jump through hoops to get it to run on Visual C++ 6.0 at
the moment.

Curtis Faith wrote:
<snip>> If people are deciding what open-source database server they want to
> use, Linux or FreeBSD is the obvious choice for the server OS. The kind
> of people who are inclined to use PostgreSQL or MySQL will mostly NOT be
> considering Windows servers.

For another perspective, we've been getting a few requests per day 
through the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing site's request form along 
the lines of:

"Is there a license fee for using PostgreSQL?  We'd like to distribute 
it with our XYZ product that needs a database."

Probably about 4 or so per day like this at present.  A lot of the 
people sending these emails appear to have windows based products that 
need a database, and have heard of PostgreSQL being a database that they 
don't need to pay license fee's for.  They've kind of missed the point 
of Open Source from the purist point of view, but it's still working for 
them.  ;-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

*sigh*

Often there isn't a choice of OS. If I am selling to a large enterprise
whose corporate standards say they will only run Windows in their data
center, my chances of getting them to make an exception are none. But my
chances of getting them to install Pg just for my application are far
greater. Would I prefer *nix? You betcha. Would I break a deal over it? No.
Would I prefer to be able to recommend Pg over, say, Oracle, or MS-SQL?
Absolutely. I'm not alone.

I don't care how it's built. I have a lot of sympathy for the folks saying
make the build process universal, rather than having a special one for
Windows. Requiring cygwin shouldn't be a big deal. You aren't going to get a
sudden flood of *nix-ignorant windows developers rushing in, no matter what
you do.

I've been mildly surprised and disappointed by the venom I detect in this
thread. I want to be able to recommend a single Db to my customers no matter
what OS they run. MySQL just doesn't do it, SAPdB is a nightmare, Pg is my
last hope other than a proprietary system. If you are an OpenSource zealot,
think of this as an opportunity to get some into places where it is often
anaethema.

cheers

andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtcapital.com>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System


> tom lane wrote:
> > <flame on>
> > In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that
> > they're not running on the "poor stepchild" platform.
>
> We should distinguish between "poor stepchild" from a client support
> perspective and a production environment perspective.
>
> What is the downside to supporting development of client products
> better? That is what I am really suggesting.
>
> If people are deciding what open-source database server they want to
> use, Linux or FreeBSD is the obvious choice for the server OS. The kind
> of people who are inclined to use PostgreSQL or MySQL will mostly NOT be
> considering Windows servers.
>
>
> > I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people
> > can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops.  But
> > let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength
> > solution; nor give any level of support that might lead
> > others to make such confusion.
>
> All we can do is simply to make it clear that Windows
> is not recommended for production server use and outline
> all the reasons why Windows sucks for that purpose.
>
> Beyond that, if people want to shoot themselves in the head, they will
> do so and I don't see much point in trying to stop them.
>
>
> > The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to
> > buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. <flame off>
>
> <flame retardent on>
> How does providing a native Windows executable that doesn't require
> Cygwin accomplish your objective. It seems to me that you are going to
> have the problem if you release a native version irrespective of the
> issue at hand (Visual C++ project support).
>
> I don't see how making it easier to build adds to this problem.
>
> I also don't see how making it harder for Windows client developer to
> adopt PostgreSQL helps anyone. <flame retardent off>
>
> I hate Microsoft and I don't like Windows, but I am forced to use it
> because the software we need to run our business runs only on
> Windows. I use Unix whenever possible and whenever reliability is
> required.
>
> - Curtis
>
> P.S. The lack of a real C++ client library that supports the most common
> development environment out there is another problem that seriously
> impedes Windows client developers.
>
> I like libpqxx, Jeroen did a find job. However, one needs to
> jump through hoops to get it to run on Visual C++ 6.0 at
> the moment.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Justin Clift wrote:
> For another perspective, we've been getting a few requests per day 
> through the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing site's request form along 
> the lines of:
> 
> "Is there a license fee for using PostgreSQL?  We'd like to distribute 
> it with our XYZ product that needs a database."
> 
> Probably about 4 or so per day like this at present.  A lot of the 
> people sending these emails appear to have windows based products that 
> need a database, and have heard of PostgreSQL being a database that they 
> don't need to pay license fee's for.  They've kind of missed the point 
> of Open Source from the purist point of view, but it's still working for 
> them.  ;-)

If they are:a) not clueful enough to actually look at the license, andb) looking at it from the purely selfish
perspectiveof "not having to   pay license fees,"
 
then are they /truly/ people where it is useful to put effort into being
helpful?

Furthermore, if their lawyers are incapable of reading the license and
explaining to them "You don't have to pay," I'd suggest the thought that
maybe they have bigger problems than you can possibly solve for them.

The great security quote of recent days is thus: "If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, then you will be
hacked."-- Richard Clarke
 

The analagous thing might be:

"If you spend more on coffee than you do on getting proper legal advice
about software licenses, then it's just possible that you might do
something DOWNRIGHT STUPID and get yourself in a whole barrel of legal
hot water."

If these people are incapable of reading software licenses, and haven't
any competent legal counsel to to do it for them, you've got to wonder
if they are competent to sell licenses to their own software.  I
seriously doubt that they are.

Furthermore, I'm not at all sure that it is wise for you to even /try/
to give them any guidance in this, beyond giving them a URL to the
license, and saying "Have your lawyer read this."  If you start giving
them interpretations of the license, that smacks of "giving legal
advice," and bar associations tend to frown on that.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/
"Interfaces keep things tidy, but don't accelerate growth: functions
do." -- Alan Perlis