[DUG] Migration from IBX to Interbase to SQL-Server 2005

[Richard Vowles]

Seriously, because it is a far better embedded, reliable database than
SQL Server or MSDE. It requires no DBA (and we have a NZ customer with
thousands of untrained users of it that proves this really, really well)
and very little maintenance for departmental style applications.

It certainly isn't the best for everything, but if you have IB, you have
to have pretty good reasons to move. Paul's company has a good reason -
their customers need much better BI tools than are available for
InterBase, but any database movement is painful.

Just like you shouldn't move the other way in that case we talked about
before.

But one of the main criteria I will be promoting when I go properly to
DevCo will be just that - reliable, low maintenance, embedded for
departmental style databases. There are certainly things that I would
say InterBase doesn't do very well, and I know of at least two cases
where using IB has caused great pain and problems for the customer, but
I also plan to be working with customers of IB to promote "why IB" to
their customer base. And also educating them in knowing when IB is a
good choice and when it isn't.

As you say, memory footprint is pretty much irrelevant these days :-)

Richard

---
Richard Vowles, Solutions Architect, Borland New Zealand
email: richard.vowles at borland.com
phone: +64-9-9184573
cell: +64-21-467747
other: MSN richard.vowles at borland.com, skype: rvowles
blog: http://www.usergroup.org.nz/blogs/selectBlog.html?id=39769

-----Original Message-----
From: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]
On Behalf Of Neven MacEwan
Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:00 a.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: Re: [DUG] Migration from IBX to Interbase to SQL-Server 2005

Richard

Why would anyone use interbase/firebird? (and if you give me the small
footprint dogma I'll come over and shut down your browser, which at this
time is using more memory)