"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There is choice. PostgreSQL runs natively on Windows XP. Apache runs > natively with Windows XP.
And that choice is PostgreSQL for databases, and Apache for web sites. I see. Are you trying to configure my computer for me? ;-) I know about choices. And I don't want to limit them to Apache and PostgreSQL. Please understand that there are cons and pros for different solutions, and not all choices are made because of purely technical merits. > However the real reason is this. When you build a toolkit, the moment > you start using other databases, you loose the ability to easily take > advantage of the database you are developing for. The moment I started to use such toolkit, I have choices to move my stuff to different database/webserver without major disruptions. As soon as I start to use intricate features of specific database I limit my database choices to that database. If your stuff really requires some specific features, I don't think any toolkit will help you. Personally I want to write in standard SQL. The only problem is there is no such beast in existence. All databases have incompatible quirks. > Yes this is a generalized statement, but every toolkit I have looked at > has to make so many compromises to work with so many different databases > it almost isn't worth it. It depends on requirements of your project, doesn't it? > Apache, that is probably lack of expertise more than anything. There is Quite possible. > a reason that Apache is the number one deployed HTTP server on the net and > it isn't because it is free. It is debatable. But it is not the point. > Are you using Apache 1 or 2? If you are using 2, mod_deflate should > resolve any of those problems. I use what DreamHost provides: 1.x. If you think this is a wrong choice, feel free to write them. I did. Ditto for mod_deflate. I don't think it is relevant for my needs. > As I said, MySQL is a horrible database. I am a PostgreSQL Advocate. If > you need decent database hosting, come over here > (http://www.commandprompt.com). We won't even let you install MySQL. So much about choices. :-) "We'll force people to Communism with an Iron Fist" (c) Reds --- who knew exactly what is best for the people. :-) You did mention "MySQL is a horrible database" twice. Does it mean that everybody should concentrate on one database de-jour? Today it is PostgreSQL. Yesterday it was MySQL. Before that it was Oracle. IBM is touting DB2, and so on. I don't even know what is going to be tomorrow. Beefed-up SQLite on steroids? :-) Personally I think that people have to have a choice. Let's be pragmatics for a change. For example, I never really understood a reason why people use SQLite, but I accept and admit that this is my problem, not that people. Maybe I should invest more time in SQLite and understand, when to use it. And, yes, I may be wrong. Being constantly wrong is my hobby. :-) > Honestly, I don't care about IIS -- it just seems to be a waste of > resources. If you want to push energy into please feel free. That is the > point of a OSS project. Thank you for your kind permission to waste my resources. I feel less guilty now. In regards to IIS, that is probably lack of expertise more than anything. ;-) > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake Thanks, Eugene PS: I never understood what "runs natively" means. "PostgreSQL runs natively on Windows XP. Apache runs natively with Windows XP." Is there any other way? Either it runs or it doesn't. Probably my lack of expertise is acting up again...
