Steve Summers wrote:

>
> I think to the degree that there's any truth to the "we don't really
> compete" line, it's that MySQL is more targeted at the "web
> application back end" market, while Firebird is more targeted (and
> appropriate for) more traditional client/server apps, where FB's
> excellent stored procedures and triggers, transaction support, ease
> of deployment, and simple administration are more valuable than
> MySQL's raw speed (on non-transactional tables) and text searching
> functionality.

Yes, MySQL is best positioned in web applications, for NOW. But it's not
the spot where MySQL AB wants to see it in five years from now. They
*want* our spot (and the one of Oracle, Sybase, MSSQL etc.), that's the
sole reason they added all that enterprise stuff in v5.0. They are very
clear and vocal about their plans. And btw, Firebird *is* good in web
space too.

> Fortunately, there is plenty of un-penetrated market for BOTH
> products, that is currently occupied by products with far inferior
> "bang for the buck" ratios.

Yes, that's true. We all have a plenty of space to grow without stepping
on each other toes very often (but it happens all the time), anyway, it
doesn't mean that we don't compete. Well, MySQL doesn't have enough
firepower to shake Firebird's position in space where it excels, but
this will change over time (and Jim is going to assure that this will
happen sooner than later), and they have an advantage of No.1 (that's
the common perception) among open source databases and a lot of cash (in
comparison to what's at our disposal).

But, I must stress out that I'm not worried about all that. It's still a
"friendly competition", without hostile takeovers and the likes. We
can't destroy each other, and that's important. We both also work in
glass box, so we can be sincere and friendly to each other as there is
nothing to hide. So lets the best one wins :-) It's completely in our hands.

best regards
Pavel Cisar
IBPhoenix