----- Original Message -----
From: "George Smith" <gsmith@...>
To: <Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Firebird-general] New implementation


> Can you interface to Firebird with C#.Net
> Thanks
> grs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myles Wakeham [mailto:myles@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:39 AM
> To: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Firebird-general] New implementation
>
>
> I think that your decision on a DBMS is likely to have both Technical
> items
> and Business Items. I'll let the rest of the team here talk to the
> technical differences between the products, but from a business
> perspective
> here's something to consider:
>
> Firebird vs MS SQL Server is kinda like comparing Linux to Windows. The
> advantage that Firebird has is that its Open Source and ported to so
> many
> different operating systems. I suspect, although you didn't mention
> this
> directly, that you are dealing with a Windows shop. This could mean
> that
> the business differences between Firebird & MS SQL Server are simply,
> price
> and support levels.
>
> But if your company decided that it needed to host on Linux, or Solaris,
> or
> even Mac OSX, you would have the option with Firebird. There would be
> no
> option with MS SQL Server. The fact is, MS SQL Server comes with a
> Windows
> requirement. Firebird doesn't.
>
> Does this mean anything in your case? Maybe not. In our case, however,
> its
> critical. Not only are we avoiding yearly licensing charges with
> Firebird,
> but I have FAR more freedom to deploy the database on what box I want,
> where
> I want, etc. Also in the case of servers (and I don't want to start a
> OS
> 'Holy War' here but), I just prefer Linux. Its more manageable and
> easier
> to identify and fix problems. However with this said, due to the vast
> history of Interbase and BOTH Unix and Windows, you won't lose out
> regardless of platform with Firebird. The tools and stability are
> comparable.
>
> Myles
>
> ===========================
> Myles Wakeham
> Director of Engineering
> Tech Solutions Inc.
> Scottsdale, Arizona USA
> Phone (480) 451-7440
> Web: www.techsol.org
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jekke Bladt [mailto:jekke.bladt@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:13 AM
> > To: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Firebird-general] New implementation
> >
> > All--
> >
> > I'm currently in the position of making architectural
> > recommendations at
> > work. The firm I've joined is an equity options market maker.
> > Our team's
> > primary development arena is real-time trading systems running on
> > Windows. New applications are written in C++, C# and VB.net with
> > additional legacy base in VB6.
> >
> > Because most of the nature of the options market, many of the
> > applications exist without persistent state. Every time they're run,
> > it's like the first time.
> >
> > OTOH, there are places where persistent state would be incredibly
> > helpful, but solutions have been architected around the need for state
> > information because that's the shape of other solutions.
> >
> > So, I'm advocating we install a DBMS and start persisting a lot of our
> > core information. It will make a lot of existing applications more
> > useful, more stable, and more accurate. By my best estimates, our data
> > needs aren't terribly rigorous. By the end of 2005, we'll be
> > doing about
> > 70,000 database writes and 12,000 reads a day if current development
> > continues apace.
> >
> > That being said, I'm ready to advocate that we use Firebird
> > as our DBMS
> > with the other two most likely options being Sybase on Linux or SQL
> > Server on Win2k. But, so far, this is based entirely on external
> > observation and research. I haven't used Interbase in about ten years.
> > My DBMS experience since then is with SQL Server, Sybase, and
> > Oracle. I
> > am most proficient in SQL Server.
> >
> > My second option, after Firebird, is SQL Server. If I'm going to sell
> > Firebird to the team, I need to compare the two products. Firebird
> > already has the upper hand on price point, but it's going to take more
> > than that.
> >
> > So, I have a couple of questions:
> >
> > If you were presenting Firefox as an alternative to SQL Server, what
> > would your selling points be? We've already talked the
> > benefits of open
> > source vs. commercial products to death without a conclusion,
> > so that's
> > not going to sell it.
> >
> > What features of SQL Server am I going to miss if we use Firebird? Is
> > there support for complex data types? Extended stored
> > procedures? Native
> > XML support?
> >
> > Any guidance y'all could provide would be deeply appreciated.
> >
> > --Jekke
> >
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> > Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: Firebird-general-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: Firebird-general-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: Firebird-general-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/Firebird-general
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>