Slashdot Mirror


Firebird Relational Database 1.5 Final Out

firebirdy writes "The Firebird Project is pleased to announce that the v1.5 release of the Firebird database engine is now available for immediate download. The v1.5 release represents a major upgrade to the engine, which has been developed by an independent team of voluntary developers from the InterBase(tm) source code that was released by Borland under the InterBase Public License v.1.0 on 25 July 2000. Development on the Firebird 2 codebase began early in Firebird 1 development, with the porting of the Firebird 1 C code to C++ and the first major code-cleaning. Firebird 1.5 is the first release of the Firebird 2 codebase. Install packages are currently only available for Windows and Linux but other platforms should follow shortly." This product is not to be confused with newly renamed Firefox web browser, which was also called Firebird for some time.

7 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. Bleh by CeleronXL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only reason anyone even knows about them anyway is because of the former Mozilla Firebird. :O

  2. Oh, the stupidity... by agoliveira · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are you people bashing so hard about the naming issue? You know what? I don't care!
    I know Firebird DB since it's earlier days and I was a Interbase user before that. And I loved it. Why? Because the kind of job I did that time required a simple, efective, maintence-free database and Firebird is exactly that. You can just install it and forget it. The whole database is just one file (at least was) so a simple tar or zip will backup your stuff.
    Yeah, yeah, I know there is MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc but as I said, I'm not on this kind of job anymore and even if I was, while firebird does what I want (and well) why should I care about other RDBMS?

    --
    Scientia est Potentia
  3. Re:Firebird(tm) and why I just don't care by cubic6 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Firebird is SQL, not relational.
    There might be a reason why you're a DBA looking for a job. SQL is a query language, relational is a database design paradigm. As it says all over their homepage, Firebird is a relational database that uses SQL.
    --
    Karma: Contrapositive
  4. Re:An extremly light weight SQL Engine? by greenhide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think there's ever going to be a truly light and fast database server that pleases everybody.

    Why?

    Because to please everyone, you have to...please every one. Which means to offer the features they need. And even if you're an ace programmer, I don't think it's all that easy to de-couple the code to the point that you can just flip a few compiler flags and add or remove features at will.

    For instance, all you need is replication. What if someone else doesn't give flying rip about replication, but needs 100% Ansi SQL 99 compliance (something that very few database servers seem to have, oddly). In the stable releases of MySQL, subqueries aren't available. Subqueries! Don't tell me that you can always do the query some other way; I want my subqueries. So I opted for the heavier Postgres engine. When MySQL's stable version offers subqueries, I may switch to it, but at this point I'm fairly familiar with Postgres and don't necessarily want to risk having to rewrite thousands of lines of query code ("Standard" Query Language?!? *What* standard?)

    Because there's no one group to please, I don't think anyone's ever going to "fill this niche" because there are a hundred other niches that need filling -- after all, for some people, internationalization and ISO Latin capabilities are crucial; for others, it's roughage.

    Database development takes a while -- or at least, it takes a while to do well. There are a ton of MP3 players out there that actually work, but very few database servers that do. It requires a lot of mathematical, computational, and algorithmic knowledge, as well as being kept up to date on the latest in sorting methodolgies, matrices calculations and who knows what else (I sure don't!). So it's only really "profitable" to have one database project that offers all of the features people ask for, rather then 5 that cater to different preferences. Even "bulky" database servers like Postgres seem to run fine on what are today considered "obsolete" computers, so "fast" and "small" are not really the number one criteria anymore.

    --
    Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  5. Firebird Documentation by esconsult1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When oh when will they make the documentation browsable on the web. Instead you have to download crappy zip files which contain PDF's.

    I think that this reduces uptake of the database, becuase of the barriers to just taking a casual peek of their features. The whole documentation is just locked away with the keys.

    Perhaps this is becuase they want more people to have paid support? A PDF manual is all well and good, but at least give us a bone to chew on with a feature list, reasons why people should use the database and so forth.

  6. Client caching by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While Postgres is the better database, installing Firebird/Interbase is a much easier task for the average user. That makes it a terrific little cross-platform client-caching database, such as letting the spreadsheet users slice at the data with an ODBC driver without killing the primary database server. For the same reasons, it's a handy tool for writing small standalone database apps without locking in to a Win32 codebase (e.g. MS Access.) I'd say it even has potential to serve the same kind of markets that the "light" servers like Sybase SQL Anywhere serve.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  7. Re:An extremly light weight SQL Engine? by Sxooter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ohhh. and I need a dump truck that's fast and small, but can carry 28 metric tonnes of stone at the same time. And it needs a built in hot tub. And a satellite dish.

    Comon, every piece of software is a compromise. If you need a lot of features, then it isn't gonna be small. If you need it small and fast it's gonna be missing some features.

    Fast, featureful, small. Pick two.

    --

    --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.