plinehan wrote:

>
> Hi all (if wrong list, let me know)
>
>
> I listened with interest to Ann Harrison's
> webinar on the history of IB/FB downloaded
> from the ibphoenix site with some interest
> and indeed enjoyment (it was nice to be able
> to put a voice to the email!).
>
> On listening, I got the idea on the reasons
> why IB lost out to Oracle. They were twofold:
>
>
> 1) too strict an adherence to the SQL standards
> (look at Oracle's massacre of those!) - not enough
> proprietary extensions, leading to (in the minds
> of PHB's anyway) a perception that IB lacked
> in power
>
>
> and
>
>
> 2) trying to too resource economical - i.e. while
> IB was trying to conserve all sorts of resources,
> Oracle was saying "to hell with that, let's just
> get the feature in, by the time it's bedded down,
> the hardware will have caught up!"
>
>
> Basically, IB was too good for its own good!
>
>
> Any thoughts or ideas anyone?
>

Interbase was a good start, but Firebird got mired in parochial politics
that prevented it from adapting to an SMP world. Firebird needs to:

* Cut over from peer to peer to a process based server
* Embrace OO methodology to manage complexity
* Adopt fine grain multi-threading
* Implement gateways to other products
* Provide backwards compatibility to preserve user investment while
enabling innovation
* Embrace multi-tenancy

Damage to Firebird was all self-inflicted. Oh, and kicking people out
of the project for "anticipated future inactivity" (thanks Paul and
Helen) didn't help, either.

--
Jim Starkey
NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]