Subject Re: [firebird-support] Re: Any idea of numbers of installations?
Author Svein Erling Tysvaer
>But their major concern is going to be "is FB ready from 'primetime'?"

I guess that depends on their demands. If their demands are so great that
Oracle is the only database known to fulfil them, then it might be worth
checking Fb carefully before answering, and I'm not certain about the
answer. Also, Firebird (or rather, InterBase) was designed in secure
environments, so if you plan to have your database in an insecure
environment with untrusted people having physical access to the files
(something that is not recommended anyway), Firebird is not the most secure
database around.

Though if your clients do keep their database in a safe place and are
generally satisfied with databases like MS SQL Server, then I think
"upgrading" to Firebird could be worth considering. We upgraded from
InterBase 5.6 to Firebird 0.9.4 for our production environment a couple of
years ago and experienced no problems.

>Also, the complete Norway Cancer Registry is stored into a Firebird
>database. That is, a registration for each occurence of cancer in

Yes, we have registered every case for the last fifty years (well, only in
theory - occationally we discover old cases that we were never told about).
Though this is only used for research, not directly for patient treatment,
so our demands are pretty limited. We do not run 24/7 with plenty of users,
I guess we could have managed if the server was running 15 hours
Monday-Friday and allowing 30 concurrent users. Nor does our databases in
general exceed one or two gigabytes. Rather, boast about some of the
databases around with more critical demands - I don't know, but maybe
something like Lesters work with British Rail, or any database where it
could lead to a disaster if the database stopped. Anyone having such an