 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e@gmx.net] 
> Sent: 18 November 2003 09:23
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Josh Berkus; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; 
> pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
> 
> Dave Page writes:
> 
> > Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them 
> seen to think 
> > that it's important for expanding our userbase:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=9
> 
> That survey is a bit like asking television viewers, "What do 
> you think would attract the most new television viewers?"
> 
> 33% -- better entertainment
> 
> That does not say that better entertainment will attract new 
> viewers, just that the existing viewers think that.  Most 
> nonviewers might in fact be perfectly content with their way 
> of living.

Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in
Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't
know if it's actually right unless we try it.

We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32',  but
the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would
not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do
support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot.

Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is
uninteresting to most people and potential users?

Regards, Dave.

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:45:56 -0000
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dave Page wrote:

>Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in
>Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't
>know if it's actually right unless we try it.
>
>We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32',  but
>the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would
>not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do
>support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot.
>
>Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is
>uninteresting to most people and potential users?
>
>Regards, Dave.
>  
>
I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a 
production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser 
quality, or otherwise inferior?

I understand that the installation is a bit awkward for cygwin. I 
somehow don't see that as too much of a problem. As for usage - RedHat 
guidelines clearly state that OSI approved licensed programs will not be 
considered by them derived work of the cygwin dll (the one who's GPLness 
caused the original discussion). This, aside from the question of 
whether they have any claim on Posix utilities anyhow, or whether a 
commercial application using PGSQL should be considered derived work of 
it, mean to me that there is no problem in distributing a commercial app 
that uses Cygwin PostgreSQL.

                Shachar

-- 
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration consultant
Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/



Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:34:38 +0200
Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Shachar Shemesh wrote:

> I'm sorry if I'm being alow here

alow->slow

Just wanted to avoid confusion.

-- 
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration consultant
Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/



Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:52:50 +0200
Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Uďż˝ytkownik Shachar Shemesh napisaďż˝:

> Dave Page wrote:
> 
>> Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in
>> Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't
>> know if it's actually right unless we try it.
>>
>> We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32',  but
>> the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would
>> not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do
>> support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot.
>>
>> Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is
>> uninteresting to most people and potential users?
>>
>> Regards, Dave.
>>  
>>
> I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a 
> production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser 
> quality, or otherwise inferior?

Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) 
always worse perfomance when we emulate something... and using Cygwin we 
  are emulating U*nix...




 

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:03:18 +0100
Marek Lewczuk <newsy@lewczuk.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
> > > Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them
> > seen to think
> > > that it's important for expanding our userbase:
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=9

> > That does not say that better entertainment will attract new
> > viewers, just that the existing viewers think that.

Perhaps more compelling is this survey, which shows that 21% of the users
are on actually the win32/cygwin platform now & hence are not enjoying the
performance or ease of installation that the other 79% of us get.

http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=11

-Nick




Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:24:38 -0500
"Nick Fankhauser" <nickf@ontko.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?