what platforms should I address first for delivering binaries?

[Steve Bush]

a) for production and b) testing/personal

os? distro? 32/64 etc

The target languages are the 3Ps (php, python, perl) , java and csharp.

[Ashley Chapman]

On 21 June 2011 12:53, Steve Bush <neosy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> a) for production and b) testing/personal
>
> os? distro? 32/64 etc

I should think Win32 (XP) and Linux32 (RH, Debian) will cover most
bases. Anything else would probably be best compiled from source.

>
> The target languages are the 3Ps (php, python, perl) , java and csharp.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Exodus Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to exodus...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to exodus-users...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/exodus-users?hl=en.
>
>

--
Ashley Chapman

[jthompson333]

I suppose it depends on how much work it is for you, and how much you
want to spread the "gospel"...

To cover your "popular" open source bases, I would say the following:

1) Red Hat/Fedora/Centos - 32 and 64 bit
-So basically make a yum package.

2) Suse Linux - 32 and 64 bit
-Not sure what package manager they use now that Novell has them

3) Debian/Ubuntu - 32 and 64 bit
-Make an aptitude package

I would think once you build the package for 32 bit, using the
features of yum or aptitude it should be fairly easy to get the 64 bit
stuff running. However, I'm speaking from complete ignorance, and I'm
trying to be optimistic.

If you get those three, then you will have a ton more open source
"install integration" than any Multivalue database has ever had (In my
opinion).

Don't forget boot time startup and shutdown scripts either (if you
need such a thing).
-I think Red Hat flavors still use the venerable System V init.
-Ubuntu has switched to upstart.
http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Then again if the only thing that needs to shutdown is postgres, I
guess you don't have to worry about that. Again, probably ignorant
babbling on my part.

As far as Windows goes... Can you run Postgres on Windows? Who would
want to?

I would say if you are going for windows, do the following:

1) Win XP/2003 32 bit
2) Win 7/Vista/2008 32 and 64 bit

No need to worry with Win XP/2003 64 bit, no one in their right mind
would use that for production nowadays.

You need 64 bit wherever you go in my opinion. Technology marches on,
and 32 bit won't be around forever.

I'm partial to Ubuntu, so I shamelessly say do that one first :)

-You might start with the LTS's on Ubuntu first (Don't go any further
back than 8.04- start with 10.04).

-As far as Red Hat goes, you might start with Centos (which should be
fairly easy to port over to Red Hat Enterprise)

-That way you aren't going nuts keeping up with a new release every
six months, and you can get your feet wet and see how much work its
going to be...

Wish I could help with more knowledge. I once tried to write a gentoo
ebuild (kind of like bsd ports) or two back in the day for OpenQM,
but, without much guidance, I gave up.

There is my two cents for what its worth....



On Jun 21, 9:11 am, Ashley Chapman <ashley.chap...@billabong-
services.co.uk> wrote:

[Steve Bush]

ok all noted with interest. thanks very much John! I better have a look at Suse. I think they have an installer called YAST.

I guess I cant skip to Redhat 6 right?

Although I dont want my own situation to bias things too much, I have Centos 5.6 and Ubuntu 10.04 systems running our internal company systems but the app we sell only runs on Windows so all our clients are Windows Server 2003 or 2008/32

[Steve Bush]

OK noted. You surprise me with Linux 32 before 64.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ashley Chapman <ashley....@billabong-services.co.uk> wrote:

[Steve Bush]

Postgres got a complete port to Windows a few years ago and I believe is totally solid. However, the type of people who run windows servers generally aren't the type to run postgres so I doubt it has much of an installed base.

All our clients all have Windows servers since Linux expertise is almost non-existent in the Middle East, so we will almost certainly be using Postgres on Windows.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:16 PM, jthompson333 <jthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[jthompson333]

As far as the 32bit vs 64bit goes...

I mentioned the 32 bit because I figured there is always going to be
the person that has a 32bit machine, they want to run it on (at least
for a couple of more years anyway).
Plus I'm guessing every 64 bit OS, has 32 bit compatible libraries, so
you would cover a larger base, I think...

Although from what I noticed, its not like exodus took more than a
minute to compile anyway.

On a side note:
You mean Microsoft actually polluted the Middle East to eh?
(Sorry, I guess I should keep my opinions to myself... Not a Windows
fan personally.)

On Jun 22, 11:32 am, Steve Bush <neosys....@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK noted. You surprise me with Linux 32 before 64.
>

> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ashley Chapman <ashley.chap...@billabong-services.co.uk> wrote:

[jthompson333]

Oh and I suspect there are still quite a few folks on RHEL 5. RHEL 6
is pretty new.
I'm not sure if Centos has a RHEL 6 equivalent yet, but, I'm sure they
will soon enough.

I bet if you started with 5 and got it to work there, there would
always be a backwards compatible way to make it work on 6 for the user
without much effort on your part (usually they will offer older C
libraries as installable yum packages on newer releases, etc.)...

[Steve Bush]

haha yes MS is v v dominant in Middle East. you cant begrudge it them because they won it fair and square very early on around 1990 by providing seamless Arabic in windows 3.1. I love the Arabic script and can read and write it even though I cant actually speak Arabic. The language and region reminds me of Klingon for some reason.

[Steve Bush]

Actually my post about 32 was supposed to go to Ashley since he didnt even mention 64. I will definitely ignore RH6 ... Centos6 isnt out and not much noise being generated there.

[Ashley Chapman]

On 23 June 2011 14:13, Steve Bush <neosy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually my post about 32 was supposed to go to Ashley since he didnt even
> mention 64. I will definitely ignore RH6 ... Centos6 isnt out and not much
> noise being generated there.

My thinking was that for initial binary builds, this would cover most
bases. Usually 32bit binarys work under 64bit, so both bases are
covered. I was perhaps assuming that 32bit Exodus would run fine on
64bit, so can you confirm or deny my conjecture? :-)

Since Exodus is a programmers tool, the source distribution is by far
the most important anyway.

By the way, I have a client who is running a three year old 64bit
Win2003 R2 server (8 CPU, 20Gb RAM). They are not mad, just trying to
have a reasonably stable system with a long refresh cycle. Partly
this is my fault, as I setup an Ubuntu 5.10 server five years ago, and
it's still running fine. I've instilled into them the notion that
this is the norm, so they are attempting the same with Windows!

[jthompson333]

On the 64 bit Win 2003 server...

If it works, don't fix it I would say.

I was just thinking that for any new setups, that might be a bad idea,
since overall the 32 bit backwards compatible support in the old Win
XP/2003 stuff sucked (in my experience).

I guess that all depends on what you are running too.

On Jun 24, 1:57 am, Ashley Chapman <ashley.chap...@billabong-
services.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23 June 2011 14:13, Steve Bush <neosys....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually my post about 32 was supposed to go to Ashley since he didnt even
> > mention 64. I will definitely ignore RH6 ... Centos6 isnt out and not much
> > noise being generated there.
>
> My thinking was that for initial binary builds, this would cover most
> bases.  Usually 32bit binarys work under 64bit, so both bases are
> covered.  I was perhaps assuming that 32bit Exodus would run fine on
> 64bit, so can you confirm or deny my conjecture? :-)
>
> Since Exodus is a programmers tool, the source distribution is by far
> the most important anyway.
>
> By the way, I have a client who is running a three year old 64bit
> Win2003 R2 server (8 CPU, 20Gb RAM).  They are not mad, just trying to
> have a reasonably stable system with a long refresh cycle.  Partly
> this is my fault, as I setup an Ubuntu 5.10 server five years ago, and
> it's still running fine.  I've instilled into them the notion that
> this is the norm, so they are attempting the same with Windows!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM, jthompson333 <jthompson...@gmail.com>

[jthompson333]

I'm not much of a trekky, but, more of a Star Wars geek, however, I
always wondered how much of Roddenberry's or Lucas's writing came from
real world cultures vs. imagination.

On Jun 23, 9:42 am, Steve Bush <neosys....@gmail.com> wrote:
> haha yes MS is v v dominant in Middle East. you cant begrudge it them
> because they won it fair and square very early on around 1990 by providing
> seamless Arabic in windows 3.1. I love the Arabic script and can read and
> write it even though I cant actually speak Arabic. The language and region
> reminds me of Klingon for some reason.
>