Hi David,

>> why didn't you try to realize this on the main Firebird website?

> We feel that diversity is good. Look at MySQL for example. There are
> dozens of websites that are there to help users.

Yes, but the official website also has a complete set of up-to-date,
well-organized documentation on board - something that we can only
dream of. If there's little material, it's better to combine it.
(Better for Firebird at least.)

> Firebird sometimes seems too centralized, and therefore people
> assume it is 'small'. Ever wonder why some journalists judge that
> Firebird doesn't have a large community?

I don't see it that way. I'm afraid that we ARE small (and poor)
compared to others. Therefore, even on our main website, the
documentation is very incomplete. We just don't have enough helping
hands and we certainly don't have the kind of money that MySQL has.

> The other reason is that maintaining FAQ is a cumbersome job, mostly
> not fun at all, so it's hard to find someone to do it for free. The
> plan for FirebirdFAQ is to have ads on the website which would give
> us some financial backup to keep the website running

Yep, I read your page for advertizers after I sent my message to the
list. If you've invested a lot of time and need financial
compensation, I can only respect that. And that makes it hard, if not
impossible, to combine our efforts.

BTW, one thing I read worried me: the possibility for advertizers to
insert text in a FAQ page and make it look like it's just part of the
regular answer instead of hired space. I know you didn't invent this
practice, but IMO it undermines the credibility of any site (no matter
how commercial) if you can't tell a paid advertisement from a
supposedly unbiased editorial text.

> It is quite easy for us to be wrong on some points, or miss the
> target completely. Once user comes with some false claims to the
> firebird mailing lists, the developers (or resident experts like Ann
> and Helen) can set them straight and can always say that: "Firebird
> FAQ is a 3rd party website".

Every documenter makes mistakes. If someone points them out, or asks
why things at his place don't work as described or recommended, we say
"sorry" and "thank you" and correct the doc. The possibility (or
rather certainty) of errors is hardly a reason to keep something off
the website - unless, of course, the overall quality is really poor,
but I hope you don't see you work that way.


Cheers,
Paul Vinkenoog