Hi Paul,

paulruizendaal wrote:

>I stumbled across this whitepaper:
>http://www.openbase.com/ChoosingTheRightDB.pdf
>
>It is more aggressive than I think we should use, but it is a nice
>example of positioning.
>
>

It will be easy to "calm down" this, and I think that this could really
be a good start.

If we forget the title, and keep a focus on the structure, this is my
starting-point:

- Present features that a good database system should have (Required
features in a Database Engine)
(ACID, Fault Tolerance, Transaction, Performance, Footprint, OS
supported, [Versioning?,] etc)

- Include some other features that could easy distinguish Firebird
("Unique" Features, the ones that distinguish us)
(Win embedded, no Db-admin, ...)

- Developer support (drivers, API, etc - how to connect to Firebird)
This part is missing in this paper, and it's really important to present.

- Who is using Firebird (no names, just what industries are we).
Small text, just to make things clear.

- Documentation
Reference to our documentation work, and reference to Helen's book, and
some other available in portuguese, russian, german, etc.

- Training and Support
Just a mention that will be easy to find local support in any country.

- Project Future and Support
Reference to Firebird Foundation, and it's importance to support the
project.

That's it. This will be a lot of work. :-)

>I had never heard of OpenBase before, does anybody know them? It seems
>to me that, had they included Firebird in the comparison, they would
>have lost out.
>
>

Nope. First time I saw it.

Artur