> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com [mailto:pgsql@mohawksoft.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Dann Corbit; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD; 
> jearl@bullysports.com; tswan@idigx.com; Bruce Momjian; Greg 
> Stark; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
> 
> 
> > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
> >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten 
> times as many 
> >> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX 
> >> flavors
> >
> > I surely hope not.  Especially not multi-gig databases.  The folks 
> > running those should know better than to use Windows, and 
> if they do 
> > not, I'll be happy to tell them so.

I know better than to tell people to change their operating system.
Linux is a great OS, and people familiar with it will do exceedingly
well.  But there are 40 million computers sold in a year, most of which
have some flavor of Windows installed.  People know how to use and
administer them, and they have all their applications in Windows.  They
are not going to change for ideological reasons.  Also, it isn't just
DBAs that need to implement database systems.  Suppose, for instance,
that I want to write an accounting package.  I can use PostgreSQL as a
base and save my customers thousands of dollars.  If I tell them, "Now,
you need to reformat your machine and install Linux" that would not be
very popular.  But they don't even need to know about the database.  And
they should not have to care about the OS.  A database and an operating
system are both things to help get work done.  Believe it or not, lots
of large companies depend on Windows OS.

Personally, I am technology neutral.  My position is "use whatever you
like."
 
> This is a prejudice that we should try to avoid. Yes, Windows 
> is lacking on so many levels, but that really isn't the point.

Every OS has advantages and disadvantages.  The applications for Windows
are many and mature.  The tool sets available for Linux are extensive
and usually free.  If you want real 24x7x365.25 then MVS cannot be beat.
The file versioning and protections of OpenVMS are something that all
operating systems should have modeled.
 
> A good box running Win2K or XP Server, with no internet 
> connectivity, and no user applications, can really perform 
> and be reliable. Would I choose this? Hell no, but there are 
> HUGE amount of people who either don't know any better or 
> have no real choice.

And there are knowledgeable people who understand Windows, Linux and
many other operating systems who choose Windows because it is the best
choice for their company.
 
> The REAL bonus here is getting PostgreSQL in their hands. 
> Right now, for the small to medium business running Windows, 
> Microsoft has a virtual lock with SQL Server. SQL Server is 
> expensive and a real PAIN.

It is expensive and a multi-user system ramps the cost.  But it is
easier to administer than PostgreSQL.  Hopefully, autovacuum will remove
most of this discrepancy.
 
> Giving Windows users PostgreSQL with a good set of .NET, 
> ODBC, and JDBC drivers loosens the Microsoft stranglehold, 
> just a little bit. If they develop their application with 
> MSSQL, there is a good chance it will never use any open 
> source software and always run on Windows. If they develop 
> their application using PostgreSQL, there is a better 
> likelyhood that other open source projects will be used, AND 
> that should the requirement be to upgrade the system, a wider 
> range of OS and hardware options will present themselves.

Microsoft dominates because they offer real value (the world is not
completely full of idiot CEOs -- they make decisions based on profit).
The open source community is closing the gap, but it has a long way to
go.  I don't see Microsoft as the dark side of the force or anything.
Actually, the approach of PostgreSQL and ACE is (too me) the most
superior.  The GPL approach is far too confining, and getting a black
box that will be a terrible mystery if it breaks are not nearly so
pleasant.

Instead of telling people how to do their jobs, I suggest the approach
of providing the best possible tools and letting them decide how to use
them.



Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:29:02 -0700
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com [mailto:pgsql@mohawksoft.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
>> To: Tom Lane
>> Cc: Dann Corbit; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD;
>> jearl@bullysports.com; tswan@idigx.com; Bruce Momjian; Greg
>> Stark; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>>
>>
>> > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
>> >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
>> times as many
>> >> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX
>> >> flavors
>> >
>> > I surely hope not.  Especially not multi-gig databases.  The folks
>> > running those should know better than to use Windows, and
>> if they do
>> > not, I'll be happy to tell them so.
>
> I know better than to tell people to change their operating system.
> Linux is a great OS, and people familiar with it will do exceedingly
> well.  But there are 40 million computers sold in a year, most of which
> have some flavor of Windows installed.

How many billions of cigarettes are sold? How many Big Macs? Popularity
does  not imply quality or safety.

> People know how to use and
> administer them, and they have all their applications in Windows.  They
> are not going to change for ideological reasons.

This is interesting, since when is ideology *not* the american way? Have
you looked at politics lately?

> Also, it isn't just
> DBAs that need to implement database systems.  Suppose, for instance,
> that I want to write an accounting package.  I can use PostgreSQL as a
> base and save my customers thousands of dollars.  If I tell them, "Now,
> you need to reformat your machine and install Linux" that would not be
> very popular.  But they don't even need to know about the database.  And
> they should not have to care about the OS.  A database and an operating
> system are both things to help get work done.  Believe it or not, lots
> of large companies depend on Windows OS.

I've been in the trenches for a while now, and I haven't met a single CIO
that is comfortable with Windows. They hate the cost, they hate the
viruses, they hate the instability. The only thing they hate more is being
isolated on an island. Fortunately Linux is becoming less obscure.

>
> Personally, I am technology neutral.  My position is "use whatever you
> like."

I would call myself "neutral" to a point, but when I have to give advice,
I have to tell the truth. A little Linux goes a long way.

>
>> This is a prejudice that we should try to avoid. Yes, Windows
>> is lacking on so many levels, but that really isn't the point.
>
> Every OS has advantages and disadvantages.

Some more than other.

> The applications for Windows
> are many and mature.  The tool sets available for Linux are extensive
> and usually free.  If you want real 24x7x365.25 then MVS cannot be beat.
> The file versioning and protections of OpenVMS are something that all
> operating systems should have modeled.
>
>> A good box running Win2K or XP Server, with no internet
>> connectivity, and no user applications, can really perform
>> and be reliable. Would I choose this? Hell no, but there are
>> HUGE amount of people who either don't know any better or
>> have no real choice.
>
> And there are knowledgeable people who understand Windows, Linux and
> many other operating systems who choose Windows because it is the best
> choice for their company.

I seriously do not know anyone, including myself, that would choose
Windows on technical merrits alone. I know some need to choose it for
"killer" application requirements, but not on merrit.

As for best choice for their company, I can't even say that with a
straight face.

>
>> The REAL bonus here is getting PostgreSQL in their hands.
>> Right now, for the small to medium business running Windows,
>> Microsoft has a virtual lock with SQL Server. SQL Server is
>> expensive and a real PAIN.
>
> It is expensive and a multi-user system ramps the cost.  But it is
> easier to administer than PostgreSQL.  Hopefully, autovacuum will remove
> most of this discrepancy.

Having dealt with both, as well as MySQL, DB2, and Oracle, I not sure I
agree with that statement. As long as MSSQL is installed correctly the
first time, it may be OK.

>
>> Giving Windows users PostgreSQL with a good set of .NET,
>> ODBC, and JDBC drivers loosens the Microsoft stranglehold,
>> just a little bit. If they develop their application with
>> MSSQL, there is a good chance it will never use any open
>> source software and always run on Windows. If they develop
>> their application using PostgreSQL, there is a better
>> likelyhood that other open source projects will be used, AND
>> that should the requirement be to upgrade the system, a wider
>> range of OS and hardware options will present themselves.
>
> Microsoft dominates because they offer real value (the world is not
> completely full of idiot CEOs -- they make decisions based on profit).

FACT: Microsoft dominates because they break the law.

> The open source community is closing the gap, but it has a long way to
> go.  I don't see Microsoft as the dark side of the force or anything.

Then you have not had your company stomped on by them. You have not worked
on technologies like "Go Computing."

> Actually, the approach of PostgreSQL and ACE is (too me) the most
> superior.  The GPL approach is far too confining, and getting a black
> box that will be a terrible mystery if it breaks are not nearly so
> pleasant.

GPL vs BSD is a long debate.

>
> Instead of telling people how to do their jobs, I suggest the approach
> of providing the best possible tools and letting them decide how to use
> them.

We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we are bound by
our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.


Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 11:29, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com [mailto:pgsql@mohawksoft.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
> > To: Tom Lane
> > Cc: Dann Corbit; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD; 
> > jearl@bullysports.com; tswan@idigx.com; Bruce Momjian; Greg 
> > Stark; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
> > 
> > 
> > > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
> > >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten 
> > times as many 
> > >> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX 
> > >> flavors
> > >
> > > I surely hope not.  Especially not multi-gig databases.  The folks 
> > > running those should know better than to use Windows, and 
> > if they do 
> > > not, I'll be happy to tell them so.
> 
> I know better than to tell people to change their operating system.
> Linux is a great OS, and people familiar with it will do exceedingly
> well.  But there are 40 million computers sold in a year, most of which
> have some flavor of Windows installed.  

I think the more important part of Tom's point isn't that Windows in
general sucks (even though it does) but that PostgreSQL ON Windows is a
brand new thing, and if you're willing to put a multi-gig ERP system on
it and bet the company, you shouldn't be in a data center, because right
now it simply hasn't been tested enough.

Now, setting up a unix box with postgresql for production and becoming a
part of the windows testing effort in your spare time, until Windows
proves itself ready and worthy, that makes sense.  

I'm no fan of microsoft or Bill Gates, for the reasons mentioned in
books like "The Microsoft Files".  But my main objection to putting a
PostgreSQL on Windows server online right now would be the same one I
would have against putting a MS SQL server on Windows online right now,
neither one has ever been proven reliable.  :-)


Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:41:56 -0600
"Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com [mailto:pgsql@mohawksoft.com] 
> >
> > > I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks running
> > > those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not, I'll
> > > be happy to tell them so.

You know, it makes you wonder. Tom must not have enough work to do if he's so
bored that he wants to spice up the postgres mailing lists this way :)

-- 
greg


12 Jun 2004 04:03:27 -0400
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com [mailto:pgsql@mohawksoft.com]
>> >
>> > > I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
>> running
>> > > those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not,
>> I'll
>> > > be happy to tell them so.
>
> You know, it makes you wonder. Tom must not have enough work to do if he's
> so
> bored that he wants to spice up the postgres mailing lists this way :)
>
> --
> greg

It is the creative mind. We all suffer from "Engineer's Tourettes
Syndrome" (The uncontrollable need to express contrarian and margenally
related opinions.) and at some point.

Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces