Adam,
I did not intend say that firebird should not have a web site.

I was merely responding to the riduclous idea that firebird
should not release if it didn't have a 'good looking' web site.

My original post on this thread was regarding the idea that firebird
needs a NEW web site that is somehow fundamentally different
from the current firebird.sourceforge.net.

Adam Clarke wrote:

>
> Reed,
>

[...]

>
> Just because you understand where to go to get information about Firebird
> and just how Firebird and Interbase are related and just how all the sites
> in the Firebird/Interbase sphere relate, doesn't mean that a newcomer will.
>

Absolutly.

> Now I make an assumption here, that those contributing to Firebird have an
> interest in gaining new users. I certainly see benefits from this. More
> testers, more platforms, more feedback, more potential new coders, more
> 'word of mouth' marketeers (the only kind I like).
>

Many of the firebird developers would like this. My main
motivation is to see it be useful for those who want it. Others
are involved because they want a particular port (for their own
use perhaps, or just for the fun of it). That's what I'm trying to get
at by saying that 'firebird' is not an entity that has many goals of
its own.

> I also make another assumption, that the way I evaluate the potential of an
> Open Source product is similar to others.
> Here's what I do.
>

[...]

>

Your thoughts on choosing an open source program are similar to
mine, but for me, it boils down to the usefulness of the item
in question. Sometimes you find a program that has no maintainer, no
web site, but is just the right thing. Of course if you have a choice
of one with a more active community, then you would go for that.

[...]
--
Reed Mideke
email: rfm(at)cruzers.com -If that fails: rfm(at)portalofevil.com