At 3/28/00 07:20 PM (Tuesday), Jason Wharton wrote:

> >Most people will want to use access as a front end and
> >interbase as the back end.
>
>Pardon me but what *people* are you talking about?
>
> >Although Delphi is a very productive environment
> >it's no match for access.
>
>You had better qualify that before you get pounded into the dirt.
>
>How is Delphi no match for Access?
>
>Quite frankly I would change professions if you tried to force me to use a
>tool like Access.

He's not talking about professional developers, that's for sure, so no need
to rant, Jason. He's talking about the casual developers who need something
which is really easy to use, has almost no learning curve, and can make an
average office worker dangerous in about 4 hours. That's the big market.
Obviously, Microsoft has no compunctions about selling that market what
they want in Access.

I see no reason why Interbase should not try to become the "better Access
than Access" backend for these people. I would be a great alternative when
they realize they need more than what Access's Jet engine gives them.

The big hurdle in this marketing plan that I see is that to switch from a
desktop database to a client/server database for the back end requires a
certain understanding about how it all works and about what you can/cannot
do, should/should not do in order to succeed. These people do not want to
hear this stuff. Their constant cry is "I could do it before so why can't I
continue to do it?" While Interbase, as a backend, makes these people
compromise less than the big databases do, it still requires more
discipline to use than Access. So, you will not only be fighting against
the change to a relatively unknown product (Interbase), you will also be
fighting against the very nature of a better backend database
(client/server). That's an uphill battle which often cannot be won.