> Lester Caine wrote:
> > I do think that we need to do some 'counter propaganda'. Certainly I
> > would not recommend using Forester for ANYTHING :)
> I watch a newsfeed at http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Databases
> and it is always full of news items for MySQL, Oracle and SQL Express.
> Sometimes PostGreSQL, but hardly ever anything to do with Firebird.
>
> Those of us who use Firebird don't need convincing as to how good it

is.

> It's remarkable, and with its tiny footprint should be an obvious

choice

> of upgrade to small and not so small businesses who are now feeling
> cramped with Ms Access etc - that's before you get to the cost!

Hi Rob,

The simple act of comparing it with Access is actually part of the
problem. Whilst these report writers hear MSAccess and FB in the same
sentence, that is all they will think - another desktop database
solution. Not that Firebird couldn't be used in place of an access
database, but anyone storing a significant amount of data wouldn't
even consider Access as an option.

At the time we chose Firebird, MySQL lacked features we required, yet
it was considered Enterprise ready. I agree with the sentiments of the
paper that enterprise ready is not really something that can be
objectively measured. The paper does well to list the sorts of
features that form a sensible common denominator. A MS sponsored white
paper might list 1 or 2 features that are not immediately available
under Firebird (even though most are probably available as a third
party solution).

To claim there is no company behind it is misleading. Whilst there is
no MySQLAB, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM or CA driving the project,
thousands of software companies rely on Firebird and many times that
many other companies indirectly rely on it through the software they
use. Firebird will still be around after these companies decide it is
not financially viable to drive because of its wide base.

To be honest, I can not see how a 14 page report that could only touch
the surface of all of the dbms could be worth that much money. Anyone
who is deciding about a backend to a new piece of software is going to
want to spend more than a few days with each, build prototypes, check
limits, measure performance against resource, etc.

Maybe FB could include some bloated tools to ship with it, so it needs
800MB for a standard install like other 'enterprise' databases ;)

Adam