On Tue, 30 May 2000, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > Ron Chmara wrote:
> > > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> > > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
> > > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
> > > > for
Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Ron Chmara wrote:
> > "Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> > > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
> > > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
> > > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
>
> I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's
> a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in
> the backend.
>
> Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's
a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in
the backend.
Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll
> > library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32
> > directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)..."
> >
> > The documentation referenc
> Gooing by the language in the User Manual, PostgreSQL does seem to work on
> Win9x:
>
> "...The only part of the library to really be installed is the libpq.dll
> library. This file should in most cases be placed in the WINNT\SYSTEM32
> directory (or in WINDOWS\SYSTEM on a Windows 95/98 system)
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> >
> > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
> > >
> > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > > mySQL even does OS/2.
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
>
> > > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
> > > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
> > > Brett W. McCoy
> >
> > Yes. How much mon
On Tue, 30 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> >
> > > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
> > >
> > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/dev
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> "Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> > MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
> > or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
> > for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrit
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
>
> > > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
> >
> > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
>
> But
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
> 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
> For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
> your Win9x machine. Or, even use one o
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
> 98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
>
> For home use/development, run either Linux or FreeBSD in another partition on
> your Win9x machine. Or, even use one of the 'WinLinux'
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
> > But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except for OS/2).
> > Brett W. McCoy
>
> Yes. How much money has to be pai
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > limited
> > in platform support compared to mysql.
And:
> > Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
> But you have to pay money to run it on those platf
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
>
> Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
> mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
But you have to pay money to run it on those platforms (except
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Ron Chmara wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
> Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95?
98? > mySQL even does OS/2. Really.
For home use/development, run either Li
"Brett W. McCoy" wrote:
> MySQL is great for small websites with small budgets with read-only data
> or data that doesn't change often. It doesn't scale very well at all, and
> for larger sites it really falls apart without anyy referential integrity
> or supprto for views. But beyond that, you
At 10:28 PM 29-05-2000 -0400, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>On Tue, 30 May 2000, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
>> >What an insulting article! They say that PostgreSQL is "equal" in
>> >efficiency to MS SQL. The rest of it was pretty good, though.
>>
>> Actually it said efficacy - more like effectiveness. You
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Pgsql has scads of additional features, but is limited
> in platform support compared to mysql.
>
> Huh? You caught my eye on this one ... what platform are we missing? :(
Well, you have binaries for NT, but what about home users/developers on 95? 98?
mySQL even doe
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Brett W. McCoy wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > > This has "fire" written all over it
> > >
> > > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
> > > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
>
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > This has "fire" written all over it
> >
> > But as somebody who uses both, in large scale (er.. global) enterprise
> > level data management, each has it's place. MySQL has much faster
> > simple table scans, but it cannot handle the complex
22 matches
Mail list logo
