Subject Re: [Firebird-general] (unknown)
Author Alexandre Benson Smith
KIMURA, Meiji wrote:
> Hi All,
> In CodeGear's InterBase 2007 page,
> There is a document "The Ideal Database for Your Business".
> It mentions Firebird 1.5.
> Regards,
> KIMURA, Meiji(FAMILY, Given)
> Tokyo, JAPAN.

As others have said... it's just FUD !

It's a pity that Codegear take this approach :-(

IB lived for almost 20 years without monitoring, and I could bet my
money that a lot of successful apps was deployed without this feature,
it is for sure a very important aspect, but there are a lot of ways to
work around this. The same is true for temporary tables.

CS is a very important architecture that supports SMP and besides are
more robust. I won't say it will exhaust system resources as easy as
stated on the paper.

The most ridiculous statement was about support, I really really doubt
IB has a better support than FB, I doubt there is a number of *very*
experienced people providing support for IB as there is available on
firebird-support list, and of course for free ! I doubt that IB users
could have a closer experience to the core developers than FB users
have, it's not necessary to mention the fact that FB has open source
code. By the way, it's not to uncommon to see IB users asking for help
on this support list.

How a serious company could argue against the reliability of OS projects
(mainly regarding support), it's proven more reliable and fast than
closed source. The Os projects are far more transparent and honest about
it's issues/weakness then the closed source counter part

Ok, I could understand that every company has to spot the strengths of
it's products and the weakness of the competitors, but IMHO when one
spots FB weakness trying to make a point for IB was shooting herself on
the foot. The products are too similar, and have a very close history
that it's for me just the same as saying: "Hey ! don't use IB 7.0 it
just sucks !!! Use IB 7.5 that is rock solid and feature rich, the prior
version is unusable !". Of course the products take different paths for
some years, each one looking for improvements in different aspects or
with different priorities.

If one product was really better than all the others in all aspects, the
others will not survive... I really think that any database engine
nowadays could handle very well the "common database needs", just pick
the one that better fits your needs, I choose FB because:
1.) It's solid and reliable
2.) It's provides a very reach feature set (for my needs)
3.) It's easy to use/deploy
4.) It provides good performance
5.) The license is very good to be used by commercial applications
6.) The support are *extremely* good (personally I had never had such a
fantastic support on any other product, be it Closed or Open source)
7.) a lot of other things that I forgot to mention.

But, I really think the others engines around are neither too far ahead
or to far behind on any of this aspects. Of course there is points that
needs to be improved, but that just the way the things evolute each year.

see you !

Alexandre Benson Smith
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil