On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 29 January 2003 17:10
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > > I would be interested to know how many windows servers
> > those that are
> > > against a windows port of PostgreSQL have or do manage, and how
> > > experienced they are with that platform...
> >
> > At this point I'm not for or against.  But you're going to
> > have to do more than a weeks worth of unscientific testing to
> > prove your point and move from assumptions to facts.
> No problem with that. Likewise however, it'd be nice if people weren't
> against the windows port until testing had proved it didn't work
> properly. Would we have the same general reactions to a revived VMS port
> or one for OS/2 (not counting Tom's which is an valid concern over a
> specific issue)? I suspect not...

VMS and OS/2 have proven track records of being rugged.  Windows has
always had a reputation of being fragile.  And yes, I have extensive
experience with all three.

 Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
         Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to