Greg Copeland wrote: > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote: > > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as > > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as > > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable > > enough. > > I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on > something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero > to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market > is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share > holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest > software audience in the world were completely ignored. > > Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting > any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to > make money; they're even obligated to do so.
That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation? More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix* community? The answer, I think, is no. And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a native Windows port to the world. Of course, you could argue that Oracle and IBM didn't have much of a reputation anyway, and I wouldn't be able to say much to that. :-) -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org