Subject Re: [ib-support] Re: MySQL vs Firebird - the slow decay
Author meta
Well, then make Firebird become more popular, by submitting many-many
opensource application Firebird based.
No need to feel pity for firebird, just do things to make it happen as
countable RDBMS.

Am I asking too much?


On Tuesday 24 September 2002 05:59 am, you wrote:
> --- In ib-support@y..., "Alan McDonald" <alan@m...> wrote:
> > Referential integrity and other constraints.
> > Subselects
> > Unions
> > Views
> > Triggers
> And when they get added? These are in MySQL's "Things to be done
> real soon" and "Things that must be done eventually." This is a
> project that has proven its ability to fasttrack because of the huge
> user base. That list is only going to dwindle until there is nothing
> significant you can point out that Firebird has over MySQL (I'm
> hoping that MySQL stays a bit loony in the record-locking department
> so at least FB will have that advantage). I don't so much like MySQL
> as envy its spirit. It's filling the void that Firebird should be
> filling. How many revenge films are there where the hero's
> achievements are usurped by the bad guy and the hero spends the whole
> film trying to expose the truth? That's what being a Firebird dba is
> like!
> Getting into a feature by feature comparison is off target. It's
> the 'buzz' thing that I'm frustrated about. Yes, I can spout a list
> of reasons why Firebird beats other RDBMSs, including -- very much
> including -- MS SQL (what, you actually want to control the order of
> your trigger firing? Not with Uncle Bill's Sybase). But nobody is
> listening. When MySQL announce views or ref integrity or triggers,
> for millions of users it will be as if those guys invented
> it. "Finally we have views just like Oracle," they will crow. There
> will be news releases; there will be cheers; there will be dancing in
> the streets. Will anyone listen when you point out that Interbase
> had em years ago? Nope. Multigenerational before SQL Server? Nope.
> So who's fault is it that nobody knows that stuff, that nobody knows
> about Firebird? It's nobody's fault because nobody (apart from the
> devs at conferences) has made a big effort to educate the db public.
> Okay, so MySQL and Firebird going head to head is only happening in
> *my* head. There is no real-world competition going on between the
> two. And that's a darn shame. Because if there were, there's a good
> chance db developers currently working on MySQL might switch or
> contribute to Firebird too. How could they resist? Instead of
> reinventing the wheel (views, subselects) they could be working on
> new, innovative features. Mind you, we'd get them stuck into things
> like security and internal replication first, naturally.
> Finally, this thread is no disrespect to the core Firebird devs. I
> have nothing but admiration for you people. Firebird is here solely
> because of you guys, end of story. (By the way, where did Claudio
> disappear to?). I just wish there were a lot more of you :-)
> But I'm not here to backslap. IMHO the Firebird community is too
> full of parochial platitudes and well-meaning sentiment (this thread
> of mine a perfect example). All this talk is firing me up, and I
> don't really want to be fired up. When I get fired up, I get mad.
> When I get mad, I take action. If Firebird 2 gets me half as excited
> as FB1... well, I may go a little bit postal. Now that I consider
> myself unfettered by the restraints of the civilized firebird
> community, I just might put on my stomping shoes and go make some
> noise elsewhere than here in this respectable, quiet neighbourhood.
> "It hath made me mad."
> Regards,
> Andrew Ferguson
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to