Well, here is the latest update on my adventures on installing
Firebird to RH9. After the installation, I connected to it from a
windows client, with IBConsole, (I know, I know. I should be
switching to IB_SQL or something else, but I feel comfortable with
IBConsole, and for this, I wanted to feel comfortable, and I don't
know the command line syntax at all) Created my database. Then I
connected again through the windows client, this time using client
software I've written in Delphi.

Created all my tables, indexes, generators, triggers and procedures.

No problems. In fact it was so responsive at times I wasn't sure it
was even working.

Next I moved some data in. Then I ran a Select statement that had
multiple sub selects, with a sum and group by in each sub select.

When I ran this IT TOOK 00:00:00:0070 EXECUTION TIME. AWESOME!! The
same query on an XP at the office took about 4 - 5 seconds.
Admittedly, the XP is on a little slower machine. 2.4 Ghz, 500M ram,
and this Linux install is on a 3.0Ghz, 1.0G ram.

I have no way of knowing how much the execution difference is due to
the hardware and how much to the OS but I just thought I would pass
it on. For whats its worth, it was jaw dropping butt kicking fast!

Dixon

--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie <helebor@t...>
wrote:

> At 11:34 PM 22/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >I'm using the .RPM install of RC7 instead of .TAR on RH9. Here's
> >the install (from the command line):
> >
> >rpm -Uvh FirebirdSS-1.5.0.4027-RC7.i686.rpm
> >
> >Use -ivh instead if FB is already installed (be sure to shut down
> >the server first).
> >
> >FB then gets installed into /opt/firebird
>
> Yes, the rpm would have been much simpler for Dixon, as a Linux
> newbie. The purpose of Pavel's configurable script was for

testing - I

> guess the assumption was too easily made that the user would know

the

> difference between a shell script and a GUI installer. There

probably

> should be a louder warning for Linux newbies to avoid the shell

script

> until they understand better what's going on.
>
> It's important to get a good, robust, configurable script worked

up,

> because fewer members of the Linux constellation support RPM now,

or do so

> in idiosyncratic ways. We're probably justified in thinking RPM

might

> eventually disappear, given the current musical chairs with control

of the

> main distros.
>
> heLen