| Subject | Re: History of Interbase's failure to make it to the big time. |
|---|---|
| Author | paulruizendaal |
| Post date | 2005-10-19T18:55:59Z |
Paul,
Why do write that FB/IB has a market share of only 2% ??
See research by e.g. Evans, that says 28% in a survey with a skew
unfavourable to FB/IB:
http://news.fyracle.org
Oracle, DB2 and SQLServer (excl. MSDE) have an installed base of about
1 mln installations each. FB/IB has an installed base 3 times that size.
A recent survey by Carlos Cantu et al. covered 100,000 installations.
That is 4 times more than all Sybase installations in the world.
Perhaps you should broadcast to the Oracle newsgroup that FB/IB has
*not* failed to hit the big time. Borland failed to make a shitload of
money -- which is something quite different and is only good from a
user perspective.
Why do write that FB/IB has a market share of only 2% ??
See research by e.g. Evans, that says 28% in a survey with a skew
unfavourable to FB/IB:
http://news.fyracle.org
Oracle, DB2 and SQLServer (excl. MSDE) have an installed base of about
1 mln installations each. FB/IB has an installed base 3 times that size.
A recent survey by Carlos Cantu et al. covered 100,000 installations.
That is 4 times more than all Sybase installations in the world.
Perhaps you should broadcast to the Oracle newsgroup that FB/IB has
*not* failed to hit the big time. Borland failed to make a shitload of
money -- which is something quite different and is only good from a
user perspective.