vista

John Meyer wrote:

has anybody gotten postgresql to install successfully under Windows Vista?

It's not out yet ;)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/18/06 22:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

John Meyer wrote:

has anybody gotten postgresql to install successfully under Windows
Vista?

It's not out yet ;)

Release Candidates are, for the very purpose of allowing ISVs to
have their s/w ready on time.

But then, people who use Windows are just as scurvy as those scurvy
dogs who use PHP and MySQL. Arrrr.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFD3NRS9HxQb37XmcRAjkwAKDLjM1pYEpUu9LRzMznmZYpkJl7AACgp7VG
gQZx4msPMI0RfkL6SewZU6E=
=WWrT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:

On 09/18/06 22:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

John Meyer wrote:

has anybody gotten postgresql to install successfully under Windows
Vista?

It's not out yet ;)

Release Candidates are, for the very purpose of allowing ISVs to
have their s/w ready on time.

But then, people who use Windows are just as scurvy as those scurvy
dogs who use PHP and MySQL. Arrrr.

Well, we are entirely ready to accept patches from any Windows Vista
beta testers who are able to find and fix portability issues.

It's the folks who think that non-Windows-using developers should care
about Vista that bug me. This is open-source code, people. Scratch
your own itch.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:

On 09/18/06 22:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

John Meyer wrote:

has anybody gotten postgresql to install successfully under Windows
Vista?

It's not out yet ;)

Release Candidates are, for the very purpose of allowing ISVs to
have their s/w ready on time.

But then, people who use Windows are just as scurvy as those scurvy
dogs who use PHP and MySQL. Arrrr.

Well, we are entirely ready to accept patches from any Windows Vista
beta testers who are able to find and fix portability issues.

It's the folks who think that non-Windows-using developers should care
about Vista that bug me. This is open-source code, people. Scratch
your own itch.

One issue I've found in installation is that you are unable to create
the user postgresql (and yes, I have run it in Administrator mode)

Well, we are entirely ready to accept patches from any Windows

Vista

beta testers who are able to find and fix portability issues.

It's the folks who think that non-Windows-using developers should

care

about Vista that bug me. This is open-source code, people.

Scratch

your own itch.

One issue I've found in installation is that you are unable to
create the user postgresql (and yes, I have run it in Administrator
mode)

What error, exactly, did you get? Can you please open a bug for it on
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pginstaller, as this is clearly an
installer issue and not a backend issue.

Did it work well once you had created the user manually?

//Magnus

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: 19 September 2006 05:43
To: Ron Johnson
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] vista

Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:

On 09/18/06 22:32, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

John Meyer wrote:

has anybody gotten postgresql to install successfully

under Windows

Vista?

It's not out yet ;)

Release Candidates are, for the very purpose of allowing ISVs to
have their s/w ready on time.

But then, people who use Windows are just as scurvy as those scurvy
dogs who use PHP and MySQL. Arrrr.

Well, we are entirely ready to accept patches from any Windows Vista
beta testers who are able to find and fix portability issues.

If it would run under VMWare, I would, however the last CTP wouldn't
when I tested it (at the PG code sprint in fact). There is an update to
VMWare that I don't have yet though, so if I get time I'll try that
somewhen, but frankly it's low priority.

Regards, Dave.

It's the folks who think that non-Windows-using developers should care
about Vista that bug me. This is open-source code, people. Scratch
your own itch.

The "scratch your own itch" line can only be pushed so far, if it is
being said by a developer who works on a project that desires to be
taken seriously by professionals in industry. For minor features, yes,
perhaps it could be argued that the core team could ignore certain
issues, and just wait for a patch. For something like Vista
compatibility, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who uses
Windows (hands up anyone who knows a Windows user), "scratch your own
itch" is not really going to cut it, IMHO. I'm used to getting that line
when talking to 2 developer obscure projects that have a userbase of a
half a dozen, but for a project like PostgreSQL, the "they tell you to
do it yourself" brush is one we do NOT want to get tarred with.

If we don't have the resources to cope with a Vista port immediately
then so be it. If it's low priority, so be it. However, lets not appear
to deride as unnecessary that which we cannot immediately provide a
solution to. That's small time project mentality.

- Naz.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Naz Gassiep
Sent: 19 September 2006 12:26
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Ron Johnson; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] vista

The "scratch your own itch" line can only be pushed so far, if it is
being said by a developer who works on a project that desires to be
taken seriously by professionals in industry. For minor
features, yes,
perhaps it could be argued that the core team could ignore certain
issues, and just wait for a patch. For something like Vista
compatibility, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who uses
Windows (hands up anyone who knows a Windows user), "scratch your own
itch" is not really going to cut it, IMHO. I'm used to
getting that line
when talking to 2 developer obscure projects that have a
userbase of a
half a dozen, but for a project like PostgreSQL, the "they
tell you to
do it yourself" brush is one we do NOT want to get tarred with.

So what do you suggest? -core vote and "order" someone to do the work?
Postgresql.org isn't a business and doesn't employ any developer - we
only have the option of accepting patches from people/companies with
itches.

Regards, Dave.

So what do you suggest? -core vote and "order" someone to do the work?
Postgresql.org isn't a business and doesn't employ any developer - we
only have the option of accepting patches from people/companies with
itches.

I don't suggest any chance to any structures in place, it's a purely PR
point.

"That's important and we acknowledge the need."
Even in the absence of any progress on that item, a statement like this
sounds better to PHBs than
"If you need it, submit a patch."

Regards,
- Naz.

-----Original Message-----
From: Naz Gassiep [mailto:naz@mira.net]
Sent: 19 September 2006 14:06
To: Dave Page
Cc: Tom Lane; Ron Johnson; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] vista

"That's important and we acknowledge the need."
Even in the absence of any progress on that item, a statement
like this
sounds better to PHBs than
"If you need it, submit a patch."

In which case there's a good chance no-one will do the work. An awful
lot of the features in and surrounding PostgreSQL only got developed
because someone couldn't find the feature they wanted and were
encouraged to work on it themselves. pgAdmin got started in almost
exactly that way for example.

Regards, Dave

On 9/19/06, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> wrote:

# naz@mira.net / 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.

Cheers,
t.n.a.

Dave Page wrote:

because someone couldn't find the feature they wanted and were
encouraged to work on it themselves. pgAdmin got started in almost

^^^^^^^^^^
That's the key word here, "encouraged", not "discouraged". IMHO telling
a Windows user to go do it himself is discouraging. Quite impolite too.

It is not much harder to say "We currently don't have the resources to
look into that, if you could be so kind to experiment a bit and see if
you can get it to work...".

It might even invite other readers of this ML to look into it instead.

Regards,
--
Alban Hertroys
alban@magproductions.nl

magproductions b.v.

T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede

// Integrate Your World //

Tomi NA wrote:

On 9/19/06, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> wrote:

# naz@mira.net / 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.

The response is not because it's Windows. The response 'to provide a
patch' is made to anyone who would like to see a particular
functionality in the application that the core group is not working on
or is not on their radar.

This is being made into a 'Windows vs..' thing and that's just not the
case. I've seen folks suggest someone provide a patch for non-windows
environments more so then windows environments.

Although Tom's response may have seemed to be negative towards windows,
the original posting had a bit of an attitude to start with.

'if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who uses Windows (hands up
anyone who knows a Windows user)'

--
Until later, Geoffrey

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

In response to "Tomi NA" <hefest@gmail.com>:

On 9/19/06, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> wrote:

# naz@mira.net / 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.

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:34:47PM +0200, Alban Hertroys wrote:

It is not much harder to say "We currently don't have the resources to
look into that, if you could be so kind to experiment a bit and see if
you can get it to work...".

Except that would be a lie. Perhaps:

"Postgresql developers do not have the ability to force anyone to do
this. The best idea is if you could be so kind to experiment a bit and
see if you can get it to work...".

"We" have no resources to direct, or to look into things. Only
individual developers (or their employers) can direct their own
resources.

If Vista is so important, why aren't seeing a rash of installation
reports about it working (or not). Why hasn't someone offered to setup
a buildfarm machine?

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/

John Meyer wrote:

has anybody gotten postgresql to install successfully under Windows
Vista?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

BTW, here's the issue at the pgFoundary

http://pgfoundry.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&amp;aid=1000733&amp;group_id=1000007&amp;atid=126

-----Original Message-----
From: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:kleptog@svana.org]
Sent: 19 September 2006 15:10
To: Alban Hertroys
Cc: Dave Page; Naz Gassiep; Tom Lane; Ron Johnson;
pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] vista

If Vista is so important, why aren't seeing a rash of installation
reports about it working (or not). Why hasn't someone offered to setup
a buildfarm machine?

Actually I did, but the most recent CTP didn't run under VMWare as I
mentioned earlier.

Still, the show stopper on the first release which I *really* briefly
tested it on was that the installer couldn't create a service user
account as I think started this thread. This is most likely Vista's
tightened security model - the easy answer to which will probably be to
simply run as the installing user, Administrator or better yet, Network
Service (or whatever it's called). Now that we dump all privileges on
startup it's less of an issue if we cannot create our own account.

Regards, Dave.

Naz Gassiep <naz@mira.net> writes:

For something like Vista
compatibility, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who uses
Windows (hands up anyone who knows a Windows user), "scratch your own
itch" is not really going to cut it, IMHO.

I was responding to someone who is obviously a Windows beta tester and
therefore presumably has more clue than the average Windows-oid ---
asking for a patch didn't seem unreasonable. But for arguments like the
above, I will happily say "apparently you've confused me with someone
who gives a damn about Windows".

regards, tom lane

I think the itch and scratch line is entirely appropriate.
This is open source software, not prepackaged code guaranteed to work on the newest platforms.
People who are trying it out on Vista are developers, not non-technical end-users.
A developer who wants an open source product to work on a new platform should at least see what the
problems are and then ask for help in fixing it, if he can't fix it himself.

One of the big advantages of open source software is that business can see that if someone wants it
to work on Vista, they can pay a programmer to get it to work on Vista and then submit the patch so
that the rest of the community benefits as well.

I would guess (being that it works fine in Windows XP), though I haven't even seen Vista yet, that
the problem is relatively minor and going through the code with a debugger would probably allow the
app to be installed within a couple hours.

There may be a polite way of saying it, but you use that polite voice when talking to an end-user.
When you're talking to a developer, I think you should say it like it is.

Tomi NA wrote: