Subject Re: [ib-support] MySQL vs Firebird - the slow decay
Author Rich Pinder
I thought MySQL was a kind of, well, low end app.
Firebird (IB) is well suited for heavy work, and high end projects.

But I do feel a bit of what you describe - If I pick up one more "Linux open source database" article in the
linux press, and see the FireBird missing, I think I'll cry !

I did kind of get some attention with the fellow who's doing the 'database' session at the upcoming O'Reilly
MAC OS X conference when I suggested he add FB to his talk - he said something like "Thanks for reminding me -
I need to look into that" - (I'd like to see a fink distro for Mac OS X).


Andrew wrote:
> [Helen, I think this is apropos here, but I understand if you think
> otherwise and do what you gotta do.]
> Is it just me or do others get the feeling that Firebird is the BETA
> in the old VHS vs BETA war?
> MySQL just got authentic transaction support.
> God forbid they get before/after triggers. Part of me wants to hang
> on to at least one reason why I should stay with my cherished
> Firebird.
> I like MySQL. I love Firebird. I resent that more and more I am
> having to justify to myself why I am using Firebird more than I use
> MySQL. I resent that more and more I am gravitating towards MySQL
> because it is not giving me reasons to stay with Firebird.
> There are two major problems with Firebird. Before I go into that,
> remember, this is not finger pointing or criticism. This is
> impartial, undeniable fact. Yes, it can be fixed by this or that,
> e.g. I get off my behind and dig into the source (if I learn C++
> first), etc. But let's ignore the possible remedies and address the
> facts as they stand right now:
> 1. Firebird lacks developers and consequently is progressing very
> slowly. Why the lack of developers? Is there even a need for faster
> development?
> 2. Firebird no longer has a lot of the unique features that once
> distinguished it from the pack (e.g. multi-generational). Why is a
> Firebird feature better than the same feature implemented on another
> DB platform?
> 3. Firebird does not have the profile ('buzz', 'hype', whatever) that
> it needs to become a widely used (i.e. widely known) RDBMS. Is there
> a need for a higher profile? What would result from a higher profile?
> Items 1 and 3 could change. Firebird V2 could trigger that. It
> would be terrific to see it happen. Do I believe it will happen?
> No. If I had to map out a timeline from this point on, it would show
> Firebird users dropping off until it became one of those fond
> memories and slight regrets about "if only...".
> Am I griping? You better believe it. I don't want MySQL to outshine
> Firebird! When I found Firebird, It gave me one of those huge jolts
> of enthusiasm and excitement that comes only a couple of times a year
> (if you are lucky). Over the past year, that excitement has faded,
> along with my hopes for what Firebird would become. In my own blunt
> way I tried to find others who retained some form of passion, others
> who would want to get some kind of strategy together to promote
> Firebird as the smart alternative to MySQL or (cough) Postgre or...
> well, there are no other serious contenders. My IBDI posts and ideas
> met with silence.
> It seems nobody is interested in getting Firebird hyped. Can you
> imagine the Firebird team making a news release like that MySQL link
> at the top? Of course not. What news outlet cares about Firebird?
> But MySQL... now that's a story with buzz. And that's exactly what
> crushes my hope for Firebird's future.
> MySQL is what Firebird could have been -- could still be? -- a hugely
> successful opensource juggernaut. But there I go again, getting
> crazy ideas about Firebird becoming a player instead of a 'best kept
> secret'.
> And if you're wondering, yes, I'm still bitter about having my
> Firebird project canned in favour of MS SQL Server. I like to think
> of my grudges as my special children, and nuture them accordingly.
> Regards,
> Andrew Ferguson
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to