Databases

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • vista

    1 answers - 1175 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    So
    If you're not a PostgreSQL Win32 port dev, and *don't know* what they're
    up to as far as Vista, why respond to the Q? why respond "fix it
    yourself" instead of "ask this guy" or "nobody here will know yet" or
    "post your query on -ports or -hackers".
    it's as useful as saying "http://justgoogleit.com/" or "check
    the man pages". While technically a correct response, it's not a very
    useful one and certainly not what the poster was asking, yes? It's like
    a "SELECT * " statement returning a single row with an asterisk in
    it. Gee, thanks for the tautology.
    Heck, even "check CVS change logs" would be more useful. Presumably *a*
    person on the dev team will handle it eventually. And it's not
    unreasonable to expect that somebody, somewhere has asked the same
    question to the dev team and that they *might* know something about the
    state of PG on that platform.
    Frankly, I too could care less about PG on Vista. Longhorn isn't due
    until Vista SP1, so PG support has a long time to go before it's a real
    concern. But then I didn't try to answer the question.
  • No.1 | | 1708 bytes | |

    So

    If you're not a PostgreSQL Win32 port dev, and *don't know* what they're
    up to as far as Vista, why respond to the Q? why respond "fix it
    yourself" instead of "ask this guy" or "nobody here will know yet" or
    "post your query on -ports or -hackers".

    Precisely. My point is not that people *should* care about Win32, or
    that some coercive system should be put into place to force devs onto
    RFEs, or even that we should commit to having something ready at all
    ever. It's a point of apparent attitude. Responding with a useless
    answer is *worse* than simply ignoring the question. I am not a Win32
    user (at least not on servers), but if I wanted to know if Vista
    compatibility was being worked on getting "if you want it, go do it"
    would be even less useful than an effort to convince me to run the DB on
    a *nix back end. I'd rather have someone tell me how and why to migrate
    to a better S.
    Frankly, I too could care less about PG on Vista. Longhorn isn't due
    until Vista SP1, so PG support has a long time to go before it's a real
    concern. But then I didn't try to answer the question.

    Same here. It's a matter of apparent attitude of the community to
    outsiders or new users. Even with something like future Win32 support,
    I'd rather see people being told "that issue is not important to our
    project because x, y and z" than "go do it yourself".

    Anyway, I seem to have kicked up a bit of a hornet's nest here so I'll
    shut up now.
    - Naz.

    (end of broadcast)
    TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

    http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: vista


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 0 + 0 =
QUESTION ON "Databases"

EMSDN.COM