[development] So why we do support postgresql?

Andrew ft andrewft at gmail.com
Sat Jan 19 21:14:27 UTC 2008

I am *no fan of Microsoft* but I have just been reading *Showstopper*, which
is an extraordinarily insightful look into the internals of the company in
the 1990s. I think that the following is extremely relevant to Drupal and
that Dave Cutler had it exactly right. (He must be despairing of what
Microsoft later did to his "pure" design). Here is a quote:

 Since the start of the project, Cutler had emphasized the importance of
creating two versions of NT in tandem. This kept code writers "honest" by
forcing them to write their code in portable languages, rather than lapsing
in to chip-specific assembly code.
 Proudly dubbing himself Mr. Mips, Cutler was more enthusiastic about the
version of NT designed for the Mips chip. This was… because… Cutler feared
that the Mips version would receive short shrift unless someone of his
stature defended it. It was all too easy to tailor NT to Intel's X86 chips,
giving the program greater performance but at the cost of portability.

This was the path advocated by Muglia, who was convince that Intel chips
would power virtually every PC for years to come. "Screw Mips," he said. The
team should "focus on the Intel version and let Mips drag behind."

 To Cutler, Muglia's position was stupid. If the team let the Mips version
of NT lag behind, within months there would be no Mips version. Without a
constant effort to keep the two versions in line, they would drift
hopelessly apart. Day to day Cultler's top propriety was to keep the two
versions on an equal footing. As one code writer put it. "That guarantees
you portability and verifies your design." **

The parallel with the MySQL/Postgres debate is clear, and the arguments are

*Showstopper!: the breakneck race to create Windows NT and the next
generation at Microsoft* by G. Pascal Zachary (Free Press: NY, 1994), p.161.

  On Jan 16, 2008 10:31 PM, Ken Rickard <agentrickard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Patch reviewers could also be diligent about setting the 'Components' flag
> to 'postgresql database' on issues that need pgSQL review.
>  Then people can run advanced search from:
>  http://drupal.org/project/issues/search/drupal
>  There are currently only 2 such current [1] issues tagged for rc2 or
> 6.x-dev.
>  - Ken Rickard
> agentrickard
>  [1] Where current issues states are other than closed, duplicate, won't
> fix, or by design.
>     On Jan 16, 2008 5:20 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb at 2bits.com> wrote:
> >   On Jan 16, 2008 4:58 PM, Daniel F. Kudwien <news at unleashedmind.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  > > No one is advocating that Drupal be MySQL only. No one is >
> > > advocating
> > > > > that we rip out PostgreSQL support from Drupal.
> > > >
> > > > I've read where Karoly wrote that we should be mysql only.
> > > > Not arguing either way. Just pointing out there are those who
> > > > think we should be mysql only.
> > >  Supporting more than MySQL is important, especially for
> > > larger/integration projects. If Drupal did not have PostGreSQL support
> > > "1 year 42 weeks" ago,
> > > me and possibly some others would probably not be here today.
> > >  Please don't mistake cause and effect. I still believe that there
> > > *are*
> > > enough postgres-guys already. However, there is no list for
> > > postgres-related
> > > issues that can be accessed easily.
> > >
> >  Are you aware of this list? http://groups.drupal.org/node/6980
> >
>   -- --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Drupalcon Boston 2008 · March 3-6, 2008 Learn more at
> http://boston2008.drupalcon.org
> Affordable sponsorship packages available
> --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20080119/736719b9/attachment.htm 

More information about the development mailing list