Tim wrote:

> I apologize in advance if this is a really really stupid question.
>
> I have used Firebird for a while now, and various flavours of Interbase
> prior to switching to Firebird. I have, over the years, developed numerous
> applications for various clients that run on top of Firebird / Interbase. I
> make no claim to being a Firebird or IB or SQL guru, but the applications
> work, and work well, sometimes under very adverse conditions.
>
> These applications have ranged from small "stand alone" systems all the way
> through to WAN systems with many users and large datasets. I normally don't
> ask clients whether they want FB/IB or not - the application installs it
> and constructs the database whether they like it or not. On the few
> occasions where clients have insisted on using a.n. other database, I have
> charged them extra for the pita factor, and they have paid. In a few
> memorable cases, they have paid me again to convert to FB/IB when, after a
> while, they have realized that I was right. :-D ("Yes, I can make this use
> MS Access over a network. But you will sign this form acknowledging that I
> have told you that it will run like a dog, and that I take no
> responsibility for it whatsoever")
>
> One of the many things that has always impressed me about FB/IB is its'
> small - extremely small, compared to, for example, MSSQL - footprint. Even
> if you install everything, it only comes to about 10 MB or so. With storage
> space becoming cheaper and cheaper, 10MB is nothing these days. It hasn't
> been much since before the days of 200MB hard drives. With its' small size,

I could only say that "long awaited" M$ SQL Express 2005 installation
is about 35 MB in size without NET libraries ! I couldn't imagine full
bloated M$ SQL Server 2005,pheee..... :-(

Long live That Firebird!

P.S. Sorry, if I abused somebody (M$)

Regards
Boguslaw Brandys