At 01:15 PM 20/04/2005 +0100, you wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > MS has changed version numbering for almost every product
> > they have or buy. Visual Studio, Windows NT, Office, and many
> > others. I think that we must have a consistent policy about
> > versions.
>
>I wouldn't advocate changing version numbering with every release [apart
>from incrementing minor/build numbers :-)], would a one off change hurt?

Yes, a one-off change would hurt. Whose version numbering system should we
align with? InterBase? Nope. Firebird hasn't been InterBase for nearly
four years now. IB has gone to 6.5, 7, 7.1, 7.2 and the next one is going
to be 9. Firebird 3 is going to be so different to Interbase that it will
turn poor old IB 9 on its head. SQL Server? Will Yukon be SQLServer 8,
2006, 2010...? Oracle? Where would we position ourselves with Oracle's
versioning scheme.

Let go of the umbilical cord. Firebird is Firebird. Far from seeming to
tread a path trodden by everyone else, we want differentiation. The first
full Firebird launched as v.1. V. 1.5 was established roots plus new
growth, not a graft onto someone else's over-marketed dead-wood. Firebird
2 is cleaning up the old roots, encouraging new growth to flourish...and so
it goes. Our versioning is a genuine reflection of this husbandry.

>Especially if it brings us in line with competitors and increases
>**perception** that FB is mature enough for markets where it could easily
>dominate.

It wouldn't. Any CTO who judges the maturity of a product on its version
number or its marketing hype should be relegated to tea-maker. Our
developers have to get rid of the "cringe syndrome" and actively market
what *they* like about Firebird.

>Another way to look at it, up until the last few years Linux was seen as a
>tool of the Geek (in business terms). Its strange that, now the product is
>maturing, business's are more willing to embrace the technology, finally
>realising what others have known and been advocating for a long time.

Just face it, that's how it works. Business embrace, we hug them
back. Businesses are seeing the light gradually. As an open source
product, we can ride the Linux wave. As an established product on Windows,
we also have a big advantage over most of those that compete with us. - a
CTO can choose Firebird to run on Windows and then - overnight - decide to
host some or all databases on Linux or a selection of other *ixes. None of
our "competitors" come close in that respect.

It's not a *bad* thing if a company rejects Firebird because they feel
threatened by being cut off from commercial backing and someone wealthy
that they can sue. Already, Peoplesoft's huge customer base is feeling the
severe pain of decisions made on that kind of dependency. As they learn, we
keep growing. We have been winning the smart customers away from the
sausage makers for four years already. The dumb ones just take longer.

>Firebird already has that advantage, it has been around since 1984 (if I
>read all the recent posts right), it has had features for many years that
>MySQL is only just getting (SP's, triggers etc) this should give us a
>natural advantage in the market place as these features have been tried and
>tested for a long time.

IMO, a lot of you people are far too focused on competing in featurosity
contests. That's what startups do, because they must woo market share in
order to survive. We're not a startup. 200 new customers and 10,000 new
customers have precisely the same effect on our bottom line.

Instead of wasting hours theorising about version numbers and ways to woo
fools and idiots, get cracking and write white papers. Join Connect! and
DO something. Document first-hand experiences from your organisations and
your customers about what Firebird does for you/them. Write how-tos, share
your knowledge. *Those* are the things that impress smart people.

Helen