:: The website of a commercial company that provides services (both free and
:: commercial) for IB and Fb developers and users and maintains a pretty

This is not clear to users.

:: They're not. http://firebirdsql.org is the Firebird Project website.

This needs to be made clear on IBPhoenix.

:: >Which also leads back to - why are there two "conflicting" sites?
::
:: They "conflict" about as much as your website "conflicts" with Borland's
:: Delphi developers' zone. http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/

No. There is a BIG difference. Nothing on my site intentionally or
unintentionally would lead a user to believe my site is BDN. IBPhoenix leads
users (unintentionally Im sure) to believe it is the official site.

BIG difference.

Even the "who we are link" does not really clarify.

:: >This is essential - even if its just exactly what IB has.
::
:: Not essential. Just a nice add-on - and Firebird users are spoiled for

Completely wrong here. It IS essential - I don't mean to be rude but you ar
suffering form being "inside". You need to think like a user who doesn't
know even 5% of what you assume daily as "inherent knowledge".

:: choice. However, if you are saying that this nice add-on should ship
:: the server software, no, it won't happen. This project builds and
:: maintains an RDBMS, not GUI clients. Note, for example, there are

What good is a server if I have to go somewhere else and download something
to even make it work?

Maybe Borland should ship the compiler and IDE separately?

:: affliliated open source projects developing GUI clients; just as we have

Again - you are not thinking like an end user. This kind of thinking will
only continue to alienate your user base, especially new users.

:: You're thinking in "desktop dbms" mode. "The complete product for the

Not at all. There is nothing about server DBs that require tools to be
command line.

:: unskilled and half-hearted". A client/server developer will equip
:: him/herself with the tools s/he prefers. And the choices for Firebird
:: are
:: many: free, commercial with or without free "light" versions, etc.
:: etc. Some of the 3P vendors in our community

New users must not need to go search for other parts just to make it work.
Imagine if Squirrel server shipped like FB - users would laugh at it.

:: Actually, one has the same problem with Indy. Great open source
:: product. But what do you do with it? (Don't answer that - I use it! -
:: but that's because I know what it's designed to do.)

Indy is ready to go - users don't have to go somewhere else and decide from
a variety of vendors just to even use it. Which is nearly the case for FB.

:: Yes - isql does A, B, C and quite a few other things. Myself, I use isql

You are missing the point here. Command line is not friendly for new users -
command line is good for experienced users or users integrating.

:: and a Windows GUI and a home-built Linux GUI in combination and I build
:: and
:: maintain databases with scripts. Works well for me. Others like an 8 Mb

Hmm, I can see new users now.

Gee, look FB looks cool. How do I use it? Well I guess Ill write my own tool
just to even be able to use FB...

:: >So right now basically users have to go 3P if they want to use FB at all
:: >not just for more powerful features.
::
:: Nonsense. Get the OpsGuide for IB6 and learn how to use the command-line
:: tools. Most of them have a console shell for interactive use - including

You are thinking again like an internal developer or Linux person. Windows
people do NOT regularly drop to command line and should not have too.

Until you change your attitude on this you will continue to alienate
potential FB users for what? Because you wont ship a 300k EXE that does what
IBConsole did?

:: ..on you...yes?

And thousands of others.

I hate to sound rude - but get your head out of the sand. Or you could
rename it from IBPhoenix to IBOstrich.

No offense meant by this statement - it is biting but it has to be. You seem
to be stuck on the "inside" and do not seem to see what FB looks like on the
outside at all.