I'm guessing that you meant to post this question to the ODBC list, as it
has nothing to do with JDBC, but here's my opinion...
I think that generally speaking, the people who are using postgresql would
agree that we are doing it because we find that for multi-user systems or
other non-trivial database applications, supporting a Linux server with
postgresql on it turns out to be far easier and less expensive than any
approach that depends on windows.
MySQL does have a windows version. You can find it somewhere on
www.MySQL.com. I evaluated MySQL about 2 years ago, and chose PostgreSQL
instead, but a lot can happen in two years.
If you become convinced that it is worth the effort to support postgresql, I
think you'll find many people on the ODBC list who can help with using
MSAccess as a front-end to PostgreSQL.
-Nick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Henry
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 2:19 PM
> To: PostgreSQL -jdbc
> Subject: [JDBC] alternative to postgresql
>
>
> Hi,
>
> My boss found postgresql is not as easy as MS-ACCESS in that postgresql is
> mainly
> deployed on unix/linux side, and deploying on windows platform is
> particulously troublesome. that means the company has to spend
> more dollars
> for a linux server for that
> database. i know some alternative as MySQL, but i heard that product
> doesn't support
> nested query, no updatable view, no outter join, etc. so are there any
> better tools around
> as easy, quick, yet powerful DB candidate?
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>