|Re: [IB-Architect] Re: Some thoughts on IB and security
>Interbase should be so simple to install and use that peopleThe way I understand this is that ease of use is on the top priority. In
>will use it in preference to their VCRs. If they need to hire
>a DBA, we haven't done our job. If they need to hire a geek
>to install it, we haven't done our job. If they need a system
>administrator to tune it, we haven't done our job.
other words, embeddedness.
In my opinion, embeddedness goes with user-friendliness. Like Microsoft
always strives for user-friendliness.
As I think about it, I realize that this might be where the marketing
mismatch lies. Or is it correct to say, marketing impedance? (Apologies for
writing on IB-Architecture instead of IB-Marketing)
Marketing 101 teaches that it is NOT so much that a producer produces
something that he aims/likes/wants/desires to produce. Rather what really
matters is that the producer knows what his target market wants, and
produces that which the target market wants and consumes.
I realize that the whole problem with embeddedness is that it aims toward
the wants of the USER MARKET but its immediate consumer is the DEVELOPER
The USER market wants something that it can use immediately, that is simple,
that does not need a DBA, that does not need a geek. So, what does the USER
market buy. Interbase? Obviously not. The USER goes out to buy MS OFFICE
with Access, Word, Excel inside which pretty much services his IMMEDIATE
need and he does not need the technical sophistication of a database
specialist to service his needs.
In the USER market, I would include the lightweight developers who do not
really now what database is all about.
Therefore, I conclude that the USER MARKET will NOT buy Interbase because it
perceives other tools that are easier to use, and simpler to live with.
But who is immediately attracted to INTERBASE? I believe it is the DEVELOPER
market. The DEVELOPER market priorities is a lot different from the USER
market. While user-friendliness is a big plus that must be aimed towards,
the DEVELOPER cares more about whether the database can indeed do the job it
is intended to do:
1. STORE HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION,
2. DELIVER ANSWERS TO QUERIES ACCURATELY AND FAST,
3. BE RELATIVELY SECURE FROM UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS
4. BE AVAILABLE, FUNCTIONAL, AND RELIABLE ACROSS DIFFERENT AREA LOCATIONS.
5. BE UP-TO-DATE IN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES BOTH ON
THE SOFTWARE SIDE AND THE HARDWARE SIDE.
6. BE STABLE AND RELIABLE AND ABLE TO WITHSTAND CONTINGENCIES LIKE POWER
OUTAGES, DISK FAILURES, DATA CORRUPTION, AND OCCASIONAL NETWORK GLITCHES.
(Oops sorry, the caps lock got stuck and I don't like to retype the above)
In my opinion, as a developer, even if none of the aims specified by JIM
above are met, but as long as most of the database aims below are met, then,
Interbase becomes a very attractive product to the DEVELOPER MARKET which is
the market that is in love with it. (And that's why the developers who have
come to know it, really love it because it meets most of the above
Why Open Source Interbase? Is it to make it more attractive to the user
market? Definitely not. Or otherwise, releasing it royalty free would have
done the job.
Open Source Interbase is mostly attractive to developers. It gives them a
chance to peer into the innards of a very sleek engine.
I mean it is like a car. For the User Market, a Toyota or even a KIA or Ford
is good enough. Comfort, ease of use, maintenance free.
But who cares for comfort, ease of use, and maintenance free in the world of
sleek hot rods? I mean, for developers, Open Source Interbase is a dream.
But who among the users care, when there is Mitsubishi Access 20000?
I guess, this then goes back to the embedded vs robust thing.
Are we as a community of Interbase devotees so dedicated to the embeddedness
mantra, so much that the slightest hint of maintenance or tinkering means we
have not done our jobs?
Or are we as a community of Interbase devotees dedicated to the Wharton
mantra, that Interbase will be the database of the new millenium, that would
give credible challenge to the giants that now lord it over the trillion
dollar database market?
In my view as a developer, Interbase should become more of a database than a
I mean, I don't really care for Access. It is a toy. I don't really love
Oracle because it is a bit like a truck. I mean, I like my sleek Interbase .
And with Open Source and a chance to peer into its engire. Its a dream.