Subject Re: [IBDI] Re: Comments on IBDI article I just posted...
Author Jason Wharton

In my view, this is virtually unimprovable. This is pretty much what I have
been trying to communicate.

Notice also that I haven't said a unified "tree" but rather a unified
"effort" and I am only speaking of the "development" of InterBase. I agree
the business entities must remain a separate thing.

Firebird can be the cutting edge of Development and it should be backed by
everyone doing code development, including Borland. Nobody should be allowed
to "Add" anything that hasn't first gone through the Firebird tree.
Certified builds should be a stabilized subset of the Firebird tree. Thus, a
balance of power would be established. Not much of a balance really since
Firebird would hold most all of it and if Borland didn't behave it would be
no trouble disposing of them. This is really how it should be in the OS
community anyway. Borland would have absolutely nothing to fear if their
intentions are to truly get involved in the OS realm and play by the rules,
or should I say admit that the development community rules. This is OS, face

The main point of me stirring things up here is to drive things to a
consensus. Enough time has past to where people have got to make their
choices and make some committed directions. All the confusion surrounding
this is becoming a detriment to the whole. I also don't want to see Borland
made the mistake of passing up this opportunity to make a positive statement
to the OS community. I suppose whatever they do they will have their
justifications but I don't see a course of action for them that has any
promise above pressing forward into the OS realm that they have seemingly
made consent to.

Thanks to all so far for contributing your thoughts and ideas.

Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Shrimpton" <phil@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: [IBDI] Re: Comments on IBDI article I just posted...

> > From: Jason Wharton
> Hi,
> > Perhaps we should do a poll to see how many people want Firebird
> > and Borland
> > to resolve their efforts into a single unified development effort.
> My personal though on the 'issue' is that that Borland is having a problem
> with 'Control' and 'Ownership' of Interbase. Every 'Borland' press
> release, article, whatever always contains phrases like "Borland's
> Interbase" or "Our database server", every newsgroup posting from a
> 'Borlander' contains phrase like "WE are working on...", "we our
> OUR database", "WE are doing x,y,z"; when in fact it is not 'their'
> it is 'ours'. They might 'own' the name, and hold a copyright on the
> original code, but the 'product' is now the communities to do with it what
> they want. The reason(s) behind this are the fact that Borland are a
> commercial software 'house', and pre-v6 Interbase, is still a closed
> commercial product.
> Putting myself in Borland's 'current' shoes for a minute.... If I were to
> let my developers join the Firebird 'tree', I would feel like I was giving
> up all control over the product, together with the 'ownership'. If I were
> to let the 'Firebird' developers and Ann and Jim etc., join the Borland
> tree, I would feel like I was losing control over the product, and would
> have to make public all the 'behind closed doors' work, bug lists,
> documentation etc.
> Borland are a commercial company, and that means making money. The only
> they are going to make money out of Interbase is by offering support,
> manuals etc. This makes them and IBPhoenix competitors in the marketplace
> and always will do. I have no problem with this, I think it is a good
> for the 'consumers', and have no issues with Borland saying their support
> better than IBPhoenix, or IBPhoenix saying their is better etc.. But, at
> the end of the day it is in both their interest, and IBPhoenix's to see
> Interbase grow and develop, and continue to exist, and this means
> 'Borland's' development team working with Firebirds.
> I think there needs to be some separation of the entities involved, as
> people, on current information, are getting muddled. There is, in my
> opinion, five different entities involved....
> 1) Borland 'Commercial' - Offering support, CD's, Manuals etc.
> 2) IBPhoenix - Offering support, CD's, Manuals etc.
> 3) Borland 'Development' - Working on development of Borland "fork" of IB,
> currently 'behind closed Doors'
> 4) Firebird - Working on development of 'public' "fork" of IB.
> 5) IBDI - Community website offering news and views etc. from all
> Camps
> I have no problem with (1), (2) and (5), its (3) and (4) that need sorting
> out, and in my view, combined/merged. The two main issues preventing
> as I see them, are the inability of Borland to separate its commercial
> Interbase side and its 'development' side, and the fact that 'Firebird' is
> perceived of being 'owned' by IBPhoenix.
> If things stay as they are, 'Borland' are going to lose out on the
> co-operation of a group of highly skilled/experienced 'firebird'
> but the 'product' will eventually die, and 'Firebird' are going to lose
> on any 'kudos' associated with having the 'Borland' name behind them, as
> well as the experience/skills of current Borland IB developers, but the
> 'product' will continue to live. Personally, I want the best of both
> worlds, and a couple or more companies I can look to for
> offerings 'for the best deal'.
> The above is just my point of view, and understanding of the current
> situation. Corrections are most welcome.
> Cheers
> Phil
> Community email addresses:
> Post message:
> Subscribe:
> Unsubscribe:
> List owner:
> Shortcut URL to this page: