--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "lysander_fb" wrote:

> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Svein Erling Tysvær wrote:
> > ...one of the benefits of Firebird not being dBase is that
> > Firebird is far more robust and that corruption rarely occurs
> > unless there is some sort of disk problem
>
> while I am here because I am enhancing and converting FROM dBase TO
> Firebird, and I really like what I see and experience, this
> statement needs a bit of correction. I have been writing successful
> network applications with dBase for more than 10 years, and did not
> have one case of corruption in my own network.
>
> Those cases I saw in other applications ALWAYS were because of very
> bad mistakes in database- and applicationdesign, and those
> 'designers' would surely be capable to crash a Firebird server with
> the twist of one finger...

Hi André,
you're right, I've no experience with dBase and I just assumed it was
similar to Paradox - sorry about that. We have a few applications
using Firebird with IBO, and no problems whatsoever with corruption.
But just a single, small application used for registering when people
come and leave work using Paradox, causes problems that requires
rebuilding the table several times each year.

And it is not enough to be a very bad designer to destroy a Firebird
database - it is possible, but only through doing something somewhat
advanced (UDF's, forced writes off) or having a faulty harddisk. It
would be interesting to know how many Firebird databases Ann Harrison
has fixed which were due to other reasons - and which reasons these
were.

Set