> -----Original Message-----
> One note : we should borrow good ideas , not the bad ones ;)
> We should pass over Name change for versions I don't think it
> gives any return :customers already learned the classic
> numbering scheme - why confuse them with another one ?

Existing customers, yes. What about potential new customers, who see
Firebird @ v1.5 when SQL Server is on 8 with a beta of 9 (2005) available,
MySQL which is coming to Version 5, PostgreSQL which is on whatever version
its on and Oracle which is on v10i.

How does this versioning work with the **perception** of new customers,
especially corporate customers who have the means to provide so much to
Firebird (in terms of backing and exposure). IMO its irrelevant that FB
started from v6 of Interbase and has had an excellent feature set from the
year dot, if its *perceived* as an immature product *some* people will not
touch it, especially managers of medium/large corporations who are scared
for their jobs and don't like to "rock the boat".

>There
> are better ways for marketing firebird : writing articles ,
> keep an sharp eye over competition (mysql,postgresql,mssql) ,
> buy ads on NYtimes or google ...Open another tread with
> marketing ideas...

I suppose these techniques have managed to increase the user base
(especially in the corporate world) so far, so your probably right there is
no need to change.

> Exaggerated Personal opinion:
> Ms is only an marketing department the rest is gone to google (real
> developers)

It does seem that I'm flogging a dead horse with my exaggerated personal
opinions, so I will keep quiet on the subject now :-)

Rgds

Si Carter
http://www.tectsoft.net/