Hi,

Adam wrote:

> The simple act of comparing it with Access is actually part of the
> problem.

Nope, you misunderstand me. I wasn't COMPARING Firebird to Access, how
can you? I am talking about the low memory and disk resources MANY small
businesses work with. That to me is a significant plus point for
Firebird when talking to frightened clients - "Hey look, you don't have
to upgrade your kit!"

> 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.
>

Yeah, but in my experience they DO - until Access turns up its toes and
they panic. An awful lot of people still equate change to high expense
in small business, and are equally suspicious of what appears to be a
free lunch. They'll grudgingly pay through the nose to Microsoft because
they don't trust or know anything about the alternatives.

> ........The paper does well to list the sorts of
> features that form a sensible common denominator
>

Wouldn't it be good to have a similar paper aimed at lay people,
pointing up what's good for them in a less technical way? To me, that's
where MySQL are scoring big time, they sell their product in layman's terms.

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

God Forbid! ;-)

Rob