Subject RE: DIVERTED :: Why Red Hat didnt got IB instead of PostGreSQL ?
Author Gerhardus Geldenhuis by way of Helen Bo
I have the aha feeling.
But your reply raises a lot of things that still needs to be done by the
community. What can "new" developers like me do to help along some of these
Also I know there is a organization that benchmarks databases but it costs
money, what is the name of this org and whould it be worth while for IB to
have such benchmarks.


> ?
> At 08:45 AM 29-06-01 +0200, you wrote:
> >Is that not a bit of a short term vision. I think Firebird is a
> >better database and the fact that firebird is on sourceforge should
> >saveguard against any problems consering these battles.
> Oh, it goes without saying, that Red Hat's contact with PGSQL and
> its developers goes back a long way, predating even the existence
> of Red Hat. Regardless of relative product quality (who knows,
> really?) PostGreSQL has existed as an Open Source SQL RDBMS since
> 1996 and the Open Source engine has been around longer than that.
> It has plenty of history and a long-term dedicated source code
> developer base.
> Firebird, by contrast, has been Open Source for not quite one
> year. It also has a dedicated and very well-informed source code
> developer base, but it is one that is still getting to grips with
> the source code. Also, unlike Firebird, it started its OS life
> with all of the source code, which was documented, and the
> documentation was freely available. So far, Firebird doesn't
> have any full-time developers.
> A company could be excused for harbouring doubts about the
> stability of the IPL licensing model, which is subject to the
> whim of the public corporation which not only OWNS the code base
> but would also be a direct competitor.
> >Should a
> >company not choose on the basis of performance/specs rather than
> >on ownership/lackof ?
> Companies generally don't choose to put their heads right inside
> the lion's mouth, even if performance stats and benchmarks were
> available which set one DBMS right out in front of others. Given
> that no such figures are available, this question of their having
> chosen on that basis doesn't even arise.
> >Btw Name recognition would come much slower without such decisions
> >in our favor.
> Well, true, but how on earth could there be any likelihood that
> Red Hat would even consider Firebird, if their strategy was to
> move on it in June 2001?
> This will give you some background on PG if you don't know their story:
> Regards,
> Helen