--- In Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com, "Martijn Tonies" <m.tonies@u.
..> wrote:

>
>
> Yes well, at some levels, MySQL IS more and more ...
>
> For example, they have A LOT of build in functions. I know, Firebird
> "doesn't want to clutter the engine" and has "external function

libraries"

> (so does MySQL), but hey, out of the box, you have more

functionality

> and some functions return info 'bout the connection, so it cannot be

done

> with Firebird external functions.
>
> MySQL has a cluster-ready solution.
>
> MySQL Stored Procedure and Triggers will use the SQL 2003 standard
> language.
>

"Will"? Is it ready or it is a plan?

> MySQL has auto-inc fields.

Bloody auto-incs. I hate them ;)

>
> MySQL has full-text-index functionality.
>
> MySQL comes with an out-of-the-box replication mechanism.
>
> MySQL has commands that show you all databases, the new v5 will
> (eventually) implement the standard INFORMATION_SCHEMA views.
>
> MySQL has better security (including DDL privileges, network related
> grants etc).
>
> MySQL has different table-types for different functionality. The

latest

> addition is a "CSV" table type to read/write CSV files.
>
> MySQL also includes LOAD tools, that can read CSV or fixed
> length ASCII.
>
> MySQL also has a loyal following that doesn't know any better.
>
>
>
> All in all, MySQL is no longer a small-time database engine.
>

Ok, it is impressive list :), but there are also major benefits of FB
over MySQL. If we made a doc which state that FB if better that MySQL
for all points - it will be silly.
As I hear from everywhere - MySQL is good as a back-end of sites - ok,
let it be. But FB is good in other aspects - that must state from a
whitepaper Firebird vs. MySQL. The main auditory of such doc are
developers.

Cheers,
----
Miroslav Penchev.