| Subject | [OT] Re: [firebird-support] Firebird, power within complexities |
|---|---|
| Author | unordained |
| Post date | 2004-10-04T09:08:47Z |
Some software doesn't "want" to be popular -- it wants to be there for users when they come to
realize they need something different. Who cares if it's not picked up by new users who are looking
for anything remotely related to their problem? Those users likely wouldn't know what they had,
they wouldn't know what to do with it, it'd be wasted on them until they could learn. The learning
must happen, regardless.
You can't design a power-tool such that it's exactly like a screw-driver, except also has all the
features of a full power-tool. At some point, a user making the switch will have to learn how to
use the new (but related) tool -- what it does, what it's good for, when features are appropriate,
how not to stab himself with it. When you've used one screw-driver, you can use just about any
screw-driver, regardless of shape, color, length, or situation. The same is true of a power-tool --
but one is not a drop-in replacement for the other.
I don't see firebird's syntax differences as a significant obstacle to adoption. I see abstractions
(ODBC, etc.) as one such block (lets users treat all database systems alike, when there are
significant differences they shouldn't be shielded from); the large difference in feature-sets
between something like mysql and firebird ... that's also one. The biggest obstacle however is when
people never learn how to learn; they don't learn to experiment, they don't learn to ask for help,
they don't learn to guess, they don't learn to look for familiar features under new names (auto-
increment vs. generator). Such people can't cope with anything new, unless you make it absolutely
identical -- and then there's no point in doing so.
-Philip
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Bisma Jayadi" <bisma@...>
realize they need something different. Who cares if it's not picked up by new users who are looking
for anything remotely related to their problem? Those users likely wouldn't know what they had,
they wouldn't know what to do with it, it'd be wasted on them until they could learn. The learning
must happen, regardless.
You can't design a power-tool such that it's exactly like a screw-driver, except also has all the
features of a full power-tool. At some point, a user making the switch will have to learn how to
use the new (but related) tool -- what it does, what it's good for, when features are appropriate,
how not to stab himself with it. When you've used one screw-driver, you can use just about any
screw-driver, regardless of shape, color, length, or situation. The same is true of a power-tool --
but one is not a drop-in replacement for the other.
I don't see firebird's syntax differences as a significant obstacle to adoption. I see abstractions
(ODBC, etc.) as one such block (lets users treat all database systems alike, when there are
significant differences they shouldn't be shielded from); the large difference in feature-sets
between something like mysql and firebird ... that's also one. The biggest obstacle however is when
people never learn how to learn; they don't learn to experiment, they don't learn to ask for help,
they don't learn to guess, they don't learn to look for familiar features under new names (auto-
increment vs. generator). Such people can't cope with anything new, unless you make it absolutely
identical -- and then there's no point in doing so.
-Philip
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Bisma Jayadi" <bisma@...>
> Common user picks a software to use, not to be learned. So, if a software want------- End of Original Message -------
> to be used widely, then the developer must make it attractive enough in order
> the user choose it. I consider Firebird as the software, and database developer
> as the user. :)