In response to "Tomi NA" <hefest@xxxxxxxxx>: > On 9/19/06, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > # naz@xxxxxxxx / 2006-09-19 21:26:16 +1000: > > > if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who uses Windows (hands up > > > anyone who knows a Windows user) > > > > 1. what do those two things have in common? > > 2. what makes you think that "anyone who uses Windows" runs > > PostgreSQL on it? > > 3. my guess is you're a Windows programmer, and thus in much better > > position to fix the issue than Tom RedHat Lane. > > His point makes sense, Roman. While pg is not a company or a company > product, it certainly needs to play nice with business in order for it > to *have* (a significent number of) users. As much as I dislike it > (probably the euphemism of the year), Windows is a fact on most > development machines and on a substantial number of servers. In the > case of Vista, even if none of the core commiters plan to support it, > it makes a lot more sense to store the RFE and say it'll have to wait, > than to say "you got a problem? go fix it". Both attitudes reflect the > same reality, but the fact that one is positive and one negative is > obvious. To take a step back ... I think PostgreSQL is suffering from popularity. I remember when I first tried to get it up and running in the last 90s, and failed. There were some post-installation steps that I couldn't figure out at that time, so I jumped on the MySQL bandwagon for a few years. Nowadays, getting PostgreSQL running on FreeBSD is as easy as "make install". Now that you have a Windows installer, it's even easier. This means there's an influx of a new type of people. Back in the late 90s, the only people using PostgreSQL were those with enough smarts and patience to figure out how to get it running. But this new influx isn't just "less knowledgeable people" -- by making PostgreSQL available on Windows, we've crossed a cultural barrier. People in the Windows world think very differently than those from the OSS world (in general). Some specific cultural differences I see: Business: How much to get feature X implemented? OSS: How much are you willing to donate, and I'll do what I can. Business: Please give me a timeline for the when X will be done. OSS: It'll be done when we know it's right. Business: Who can I hire to write feature X? OSS: It's not interesting, if you want it, go ahead and do it. Business: If I pay someone to write X, will you include it in the main tree? OSS: We'll include any code in the tree, if it's _good_. There are some subtle differences in the way things are approached there, but they can be showstoppers when it comes to OSS and business working together. And the simple fact is that Windows is business, not software. "If you can solve the communication problems, everything else will just happen." Just my opinions from observing this and other similar conversations. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
