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.
The only reason anyone even knows about them anyway is because of the former Mozilla Firebird. :O
Just kind of curious if anyone would care at all if there hadn't been the big stink with the name conflicts.
I mean, has anyone used this database? Is it really of any note that v1.5 is out?
-- taking over the world, we are.
How does it compare to MySQL for web sites, that typically makes a lot of short connections to the same database?
{{.sig}}
I'm so glad this version of FireBird renders CSS properly... no wait...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
no it's a database!
It's not a matter of ease, they were around for a lot longer and had the name long before Mozilla co-opted it.
Finkployd
Seriously, though -- I hadn't heard of this particular firebird before the Mozilla fiasco happened. I'm sure I can speak for a lot of folks who couldn't name this project when asked to name the OSS database apps they know.
Of course now they'll be known as the folks that got the name "Firebird" when Firebird changed its name to Firefox. Oh yeah, and they make a database.
The only people I know that would use mysql as the backend for anything aren't DBA's. Why? Because it allows you to put crap in your database.. This has been debated countless times on /. so there's no point going through all the points again. Lets just say any DBA worth a grain of salt wouldn't use mysql.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Due to trademark infringement potential and other potential confusion, Firebird Database Engine has just changed its name to
F------d Database Engine
More news to follow.
P.S. For any lawyers, etc. reading this, the above is an example of "parody", not subject to the definition of "slander" or "libel".
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Specifically what did they do wrong in your eyes? When Mozilla takes an existing project's name are they just supposed to accept it and change their name? That doesn't sound very fair.
Finkployd
I work as a data-mining professional and aside from creating statistical models on flat-files, I manage the process of transforming and joining relational databases into a a flat file for model building.
Currently we use Oracle for this work, but in the past we tried switching to MySQL but found that it lacked some of the key features such as materialized views, nested sub-queries and a variety of Oracle SQL functions that we find useful. MySQL seemed to be geared towards maintaining a real-time database to support customer interaction, rather than as an environment for assembling static data sources.
Could Firebird be a viable open-source alternative, or are there others?
They don't make this apparent in their homepage. How do I use this? Is there an ODBC driver? Can I talk to it with a PHP driven website?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
So, I typed in slashdot.org but somehow I ended up on freshmeat.net. wtf?
Firebird is SQL, not relational.
Yip yip yip! Ow! I sprained by brain!
No, I didn't
it's right here
Any idiot could of figured that out.
I'm waiting for their more resource efficient Sunbird product.
'Same speed C but faster'
I love PostgreSQL. It's OO, blazingly fast, easy to install, robust, and free as free can be. All sorts of things that Firebird is not. And the name doesn't have a chance of *ever* conflicting with anything. Hah.
Random and weird software I've written.
Wow, two troll posts. You buy a sco license too?
I tried building the Firebird code a few months ago, and found out that step 1 is...
...start with a running version of Firebird!
Bootstrapping might seem like a K00l trick, but there is something uncomfortable about self-referential build procedures (not to mention that it was a pain in the ass to find a preexisting version of Firebird to run).
Gimme a pile of c/cpp & h files and let me build it from scratch, dammit!
Is that possible today? Dunno...the build guide appears to be still under construction.
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
You know what, a good product often has to revamp its image in order to accelerate takeup. I suggest they change their name to something fiesty, energetic and powerful-sounding.
Why not combine the fiestyness of a fox with the power of fire. I suggest something like Foxfire or Firefox!
"Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
to serve up pages, one to view them... and one Firebird to rule them all?
Karma: Contrapositive
>SQL is not relational. Its tables are not relations, because relations are sets, and sets don't contain duplicates.
Yeah, but if you relationate without any protection, you're going to somehow end up with look-alike duplicates...
...so if I named one of my turds "slashdot" in 1983...
I'm afraid that's stretching the definition of 'prior art' to its very limit.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
So how many slashdotters actually downloaded it and attempted to run? The damn thing doesn't even compile on RedHat 9.0 with the latest GCC.
Not quite true, it cause some maning conflicts in some distros (in gentoo firebird refers to the DB and mozilla-firebird refered to the browser).
How hard is it really to do a search on freshmeat, sourceforge, and google before you name a project? I do it all the time.
Plus it isn't like it was a dead project or a one person project, it had a (albiet not MySQL size) following and was under active development.
Sorry, I love Mozilla but they were in the wrong here.
Finkployd
Rows have implicit unique row ids which make each row unique. So, there are no duplicates.
Why can't they both just be called Firebird?
People who actually use a relational database should be smart enough to be able to tell the difference between Firebird the browser and Firebird the database.
Its not like they are competing products or something.
Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
I don't know a thing about Firebird, but I'm not prepared to dismiss it simply because of a name conflict with Firefox. Maybe it's a great database. Maybe they didn't treat Firefox fairly when disputing the duplicate name. Maybe they had a legitimate right to their name and the Mozilla folks should have been more diligent about picking a name.
Either way, I doubt the people at Firebird deserve the occasional vitriol from others on this thread.
--Nick
Also, from what I remember from the incident I had a very bad impression of the Firebird project. I no longer have any links but what I remember now about it (granted it may be totaly different from what actually happened.. but this is how I view it right now) was the Firebird people attacking Mozilla and writing a very forcefull letter demanding the name change. I believe that a less agressive approach would have produced the same results, and a more positive image for the company.
As far as the relational database vs SQL, I don't know *anything* about the firebird project. All I know is the title here on
I've already generated a ton of negative comments about my post, but remember this is just my opinion. It's the opinion of a linux sysadmin/perl monk/mysql user who is probably in thier target market. I'm just letting them know why I just don't care.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
it could do without the curses, but other than that, I completely agree.
Well, firebird is definitely a good contender, but I still want a database server that's fast and small... and the faster and smaller the better. Problem is I need most of the features you'll see in a high end one, and I need it to be open source.. SQLite was actually a contender at one point, but I want replication as well.. so.. my question is when is someone gonna fill this niche?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Personally I don't care except that it sets a bad precedent. In this particular case few people really would care BUT I don't like the idea that it is OK to do this at all. You know if it were the other wat around Mozilla would have gone after them.
Finkployd
If you go to the Firebird Project website, you'll see they feature, quite respectfully, Mozilla's recent decision to change their name to Firefox. Remember that the Mozilla team has gone through a lot of name changes. Camino was changed to Chimera, and Phoenix was changed to the rather unfortunate "Firebird" which was already a project name. So it's not like the name "Firebird" was all that entrenched.
I think it's a symptom of Mozilla both try to brand, and being an Open Source project in which one monolithic product was split into various and sundry projects, each of which got bizarely named. I mean, there's nothing about any of the application titles that indicates its use or purpose.
I myself vote for MozillaMail and MozillaBrowser or something of that ilk instead of Thunderbird and Firefox. Then the package now called "Mozilla" could be renamed to MozillaComplete or something like that.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Why not? They were there before.
One's a database product. The other's a browser. Kinda hard to confuse the two, I should think. They don't compete in the same arena, unless you consider the entire open source/free software movement their arena.
In the end, it probably didn't really matter. Firebird is still obscure compared to some of the other longstanding offerings, and the name change didn't hurt the Mozilla team any, although I do wish they would stop naming each release, and just stick to one damn name.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I think the problem for many people is the HUGE stink the FBDB folks made of the whole thing. I didn't hear Pontiac complaining when the Firebird DB people stole the name from them (or the indigenous peoples of the Americas where Pontiac stole it).
I mean really, the odds that someone would confuse 'Firebird the browser' with 'Firebird the database' are about as big as confusing 'Firebird the car' (or deity) with 'Firebird the database'.
Okay, I guess I could post a real post instead of attempted funny one-liners.
Firebird is SQL, not relational.
Actually, the title of the Slashdot article and the linked Firebird project page both proclaim that it is relational.
And I could be wrong, but I thought SQL is specifically for relational databases. I suppose you could use a simple SELECT statement on a standalone table, but I would think most SQL breaks without a relational database underneath.
I agree with your rebuttal of the grandparent post, though. What's wrong with another open source project? Especially one with dedicated people? I don't know if Firebird is useful to me as a database, but it doesn't take long for me to infer that there is a dedicated development team and community behind it, and I'm not about to go trying to convince them to support PostgreSQL MySQL or any other project.
And I can't understand why anyone would hold the naming issue against them. Maybe it was just a successful troll. Does the grandparent poster refuse to use Phoenix products, too?
I thought that the Mozilla people were the ones who realized that they had taken a name of another Free/Open Source project, and they decided to change it. I didn't know anything about Firebird's developers acting like asses about it. Where did this info come from?
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
I agree to an extent (the Pontiac example is a little extreme though). However, if it were the other way around I would bet good money that Mozilla would have gone after them. And if nothing else, it sets a bad precedence. This kind of namespace collision should be avoided in the OSS community where people are confused about what programs to use as it is.
Finkployd
In practice, it doesn't matter. The term "relational database" used to describe a real piece of software does not neccessarily imply strict conformance to the relational model as defined in CS textbooks. It is just another example of the same word used to refer to slightly different concepts in different contexts.
It is a little like saying that Objective Caml is not a functional programming language, because it allows side effects. In one sense, it is true, but not in the sense people care about.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
And we should trust that web site as authoritative because...? The all-caps page title doesn't inspire confidence. Is this "Proof by Google"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
There appears to be two broad groups on this site - the useful ones (you know their posts when you see them) and the other group.
Most of the posts I'm seeing here so far belong in the other group. Today they can't seem to get past a naming issue (which the DB had first BTW), and appear to have no interest in what the product is.
When you are reading *and writing* to your database and there is money attached to the data integrity, this product will be fine. MySQL will not. Just imagine that you are penalised personally $1000 for every data munge that occurs in your database? I imagine that your affinity to the MySQL mindset will start to wane rather quickly.
This database is right up with PostgreSQL and as an added bonus Firebird can be deployed on Windows and Linux. (Plus StroredProcs and Triggers galore)
If all you can focus on however, is the project name, then be angry that Mozilla rudely co-opted the name that the DB first owned.
And to all the slashdotters that despair at the rising tide of inane useless postings - well, you are not alone. Slashdot used to be about geek topics for geeks. New product releases, gotchas, advice, interesting hardware hacks, solving problems with FOSS etc. Now I must content myself with the current posting selections.
And now the ultimate tirade: If you want to feed your geek/technical fetish, it's getting to the point where you'd do better watching McGyver or something.
AC
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
They have a nice type-3 (100% java) jdbc driver available.
why not take a look at their homepage?
I don't like the way they handled the Mozilla/Firebird naming issue.
If Mozilla had called their browser "Linux" or "Apache" or "Python" would you have taken the same position? Or do you feel it is only an issue if they choose the same name as a project you've personally worked with.
Mozilla was clearly in the wrong there, but they did the responsible thing and renamed their project to Firefox and even came up with a cool logo to match their new name. That issue is resolved to everyone's satisfaction, so why would you keep bringing it up after it is fixed? It's time to move on.
This is utter nonsense. I see the author's argument but it is incorrect and pedantic. In nearly all cases duplicate records are not returned. When I say "nearly all" the exceptions are: tables without a primary key containing otherwise duplicate rows, and the results of multiple SELECT statements using the "UNION ALL" keyword. UNION ALL tells the engine to go ahead and give me ALL of the rows including duplicates.
Yeah, I'll give you that. It was handled poorly on both ends. Firebird should have been a little less aggressive, Mozilla should never have picked that name to begin with.
Finkployd
How about, why couldn't they just let things go?
= 3115). Perhaps if they had been a little more understanding and realized that the uproar about this took Mozilla by surprise as much as it did for them, maybe there wouldn't be some ill-will.
:)
Trademark law allows for things to have similar names if they're in different fields. Although both are in software, *nobody* who is looking for Firebird the database is going to confuse it with Firebird the browser, especially when both show up in the top 10 of google for 'firebird'. If anything, it goes the other way around.
In fact, out of this whole thing, the Firebird DB people probably benefited the most out of the whole charade. They got a bunch of free publicity, and as evidenced here, there's a crap load of people who now know what it is and would otherwise have no reason to.
And their conduct throughout the ordeal was less than sportsmanlike. True, MozillaFoundation probably should've done a little better checking on it, but most likely in their eyes they came to the same conclusion we did: confusion between the 2 projects wasn't likely. However, this didn't stop the FirebirdDB people from being near harrassing. Their first 'call to action' was to essentially mailbomb anyone and everyone Mozilla related (http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article
At the time, Mozilla.org was part of AOL. AOL's a big company. Big companies move slowly. The issue was going to be resolved (partially with the name Mozilla Firebird instead of just Firebird) anyway.
In the end, changing to Firefox was definitely the right thing to do. No confusion with anybody else, no wondering about what GM thinks about the name, brand spanking new logo, and clear skies until 1.0
Firebird is cool, but Le Sacre Du Printemps is better. In that musically purely objective way, of course ;-) If you can start an audience riot with a piece of ORCHESTRAL music, you've GOT to be one cool dude!
And it is not to be confused with the Pontiac Firebird automobile, which was popular for a while but now discontinued. They do make a Sunfire now, which is not to be confused with Firefox, a web browser, which used to be called Firebird, which is now a dbms.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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.
Newsfollow.com
Which old name?
It was once Netscape... until they screwed up in the market so bad that they gave up on it and released the source as:
Mozilla... until it became so bloated and overdesigned (and dangerously close to a movie company's trademark on a mutant lizard) that they had to start over as a project called:
Phoenix... which they forgot to check to see if that trademark had been used by a software company for about 20 years already, causing them to have to change it in a kneejerk reaction to:
Firebird... which they also forgot was already taken by a project that was already smart enough to not use "Phoenix". Thus causing them to switch once again to:
Firefox... which, (assuming they finally did their homework and checked on trademarks) is actually the best name since the original "Netscape".
Just to clarify something:
I understand that for the DB people it hurts to have name confusion with a much more visible project with formerly large backers. I personally don't have any ill will to them ("Mozilla Firebird" generally solved most of the confusion a long time ago, and now it's a done deal). But, in the heat of the moment, their conduct could've been a little better.
the "Bitchin' Camaro Database"... :)
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
How about the fact that their first response to the browser name was to mail bomb everyone at Mozilla?
Yeah, I guess that's how adults act....
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
A number of ACCT and Manufacturing packages have already taken up Firebird as a backend. It's being looked seriously as a replacement for Pervasive and some of the other low end/low cost RDBMSs.
When I read rants like those contain in Database Debunkings or the hyper-attenuated formalism of C.J. Date's book, a little voice keeps saying "any yet...and yet". Somehow despite the fact that we use tables instead of relvars I can still book a flight or order a book from Amazon. If these guys are selling something other than arrant pendantry somehow it has escaped me and, it seems, the rest of the data processing world. Put up or shut up. If SQL is such a violation of proper set theory and that matters for something, you should be able to make a fortune selling the Tutorial-D's purity of essence
No, I do not think they should have given up thier name. They are entitled to use it as much as Pontiac is. From my understanding of the situation, the Phoenix code name was changed to Firebird, and then to Firefox for thier final brand. They were code names for projects similar to Merced or Coppermine. The final name was always going to be changed to something once the release came.
/. about the 'Firebird relational database.' I always believed the database was relationaly designed and interfaced via SQL but what do I know..
Also, from what I remember from the incident I had a very bad impression of the Firebird project. I no longer have any links but what I remember now about it (granted it may be totaly different from what actually happened.. but this is how I view it right now) was the Firebird people attacking Mozilla and writing a very forcefull letter demanding the name change. I believe that a less agressive approach would have produced the same results, and a more positive image for the company.
As far as the relational database vs SQL, I don't know *anything* about the firebird project. All I know is the title here on
I've already generated a ton of negative comments about my post, but remember this is just my opinion. It's the opinion of a linux sysadmin/perl monk/mysql user who is probably in thier target market. I'm just letting them know why I just don't care.
Some other users have posted some interesting information regarding the 'stink' that the FBDB people did, including mailbombing the mozilla developers. Any project that resorts to that level of action has to do a heck of a lot to not be considered crap in my eyes.
Also, for the record I don't work for/on Mozilla/Firebird/Firefox. I have submitted several bug reports regarding mozilla and I use Mozilla as my primary browser. I have played around with firefox and I do like it. I have never heard of firebird before thier actions, and I have never used thier products ever.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
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.
It sure confused enough people that I spoke to. They'd ask what database I use, and when I said Firebird they'd say something like 'Oh, I thought that was a browser?', or 'I didn't know they made databases as well.'
I for one was pleased when Firefox received it's latest name, although it's going to take a while before people stop being confused since most people now think that Firebird is a browser.
Slashdot reported it when Interbase was first announced to be going open source, and followed up on the actual releases afterward, so lots of people cared a few years ago. Interbase keeps getting mentioned by users in more general database discussions as well, so at least some Slashdot users still care, even users who are more interested in database features than in database names.
They can say anything they want in their advertising material. SQL is an alpha test implimentation of the relational database model that IBM released to the public against Codd's (the inventor of the relational model) wishes.
It does not actually impliment the relational model, and is thus not really a relational database, merely what the marketers choose to call a relational database so that they might sell them as such.
When SQL products further confound the issue by tying the query language to the physical data storage system they also remove any claim that it is merely a logical query language.
One cannot make proper use of SQL without knowing what the relational model is, because then one cannot intelligently compose workarounds for the flaws and limitations of a particular SQL product.
If parent poster is a DBA looking for a job because he understands the difference between the relational model and SQL it is because the people who are doing the hiring do not know their business, especially if they are DBAs themselves.
KFG
I've used it in several projects, over the years. In my day job, we recently added Firebird to the list of databases that we support as warehouse targets for our application. Firebird's instant installation, small footprint, and portability (a few meg) are good reasons to do this. Another good reason is that it outperforms Oracle on the same hardware, as well as several other commercial databases.
We used to deploy Interbase as part of a product at a company I worked at years back. We would install, start the system (which had multi-gigabyte databases at times), and then not look at it again for YEARS. Two years could go by without tuning, transaction log clearing, or anything else, for that matter. It doesn't have transaction logs (doesn't need them), and sweeps itself clear of most detritus automatically.
Backups could effortlessly be done on the fly. Full two-phase commit support. And when it comes to complex transactions, it's one of the best databases out there because of its generational architecture (something it shares with PostgreSQL).
There are a few rough edges on it, like the lack of a standard GUI administration tool. Java support was slow to evolve. The lack of care given by Borland hurt the product for a time. The Firebird people seem to have done a lot of hard work, and deserve praise.
And for the record, Firefox or whatever the hell it is calling itself this week is one of the stupidest excuses for a software package I've seen to date. It's Mozilla minus most of the features that make Moz useful and extensible. It doesn't run any faster than Moz in resident mode. It performs no useful function I am aware of. The adulation it receives utterly escapes me; it seems to be a prime example of building software for the past. The engineering effort would have been far better spent on Moz itself.
Then, just to mix things up, you have SAP DB, which is open source with a very proprietary background, much like Firebird. And probably with a lot of the same problems in terms of administration and code accessibility.
I certainly wish the developers no ill will, or to disparage their efforts -- but I've yet to see the argument for using Firebird outside of legacy projects. It's easy to argue MySQL vs. Firebird, but PostgreSQL is the real competitor.
Why they went there doesn't change the fact that they were encouraging abuse not constructive discourse.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Well maybe they don't like *your* attitude! You, sitting there, picking the fluff out of your fat ass and making condescending statements like the above!! ;)
These are commited people, spending their own time on a quality database that is available to everyone. You don't have to use it, but don't bleat about just 'cos somehow they've upset you because of a product naming arguement that in all likelyhood you are probably not a party to anyway!
I mean, regardless of if you think Firebird-SQL, Mozilla or both were in the wrong over the naming debacle, it is now resolved, and the vast majority here are fortunate to have the opportunity to use *BOTH* for free without having to do a thing.
So climb down off the moral high-ground, and say something constructive or nothing at all!
The Firebird Linux download section is titled 386 but the files have 686 in their name. Can I install these on less than a 686? Namely an AMD K6-2/550mhz ?
8 6 0 i386 .rpm4 0 i386 .gz
Firebird-linux-i386 [show only this package]
1.5.0-Release [show only this release]
FirebirdCS-1.5.0.4290-0.i686.rpm
28378
FirebirdCS-1.5.0.4290-0.i686.tar.gz
280218
etc...
So now hopefully it won't be confused with the movie of the same name.
Firefox
Hardly. They did publish a list of people the express dissatisfaction to, which in hindsight was an incredibly stupid mistake, but the wording wasn't anywhere near the "spam/flame all these people" you make out. Arguably they didn't expect many people to respond as the Firebird community (much like the Delphi community that uses Firebird) is fairly small, tight-knit and rational - so they didn't expect people to behave childishly by flooding the mailboxes of the Mozilla team.
However, because it made "good news" to have an open-source battle (or to create one, which the media is sometimes guilty of) it gained publicity fast and was picked up by people on both sides, including those who'd probably used neither product who thought it'd be good to fan the flames and as a result things escalated wildly - to the extent that some stupid Firebird fanboys mailbombed the Moz devteam while on the other hand some idiotic Mozilla zealots found an SSL bug in the Firebird website and deleted everything...
So to say that only the "FirebirdDB people" handled things improperly is a pretty wide-sweeping generalisation that, if you stepped back a bit and checked out the facts, might reveal a slight subconscious leaning to Mozilla 'cause you like their browser? I've used both products and saw plenty of mistakes made on *both sides*...
FYI I did a a writeup of events last time around.
With "current MySql versions", you mean the pre-alpha development release which for example will have (potentially crude) stored procedures? As opposed to the current unsupported beta version, which is the first to finally have subqueries (of course, after years of telling customers that you don't want them anyway, just as MySQL AB did with all other basic DBMS features they only now promise to support in a few years)?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
We are about to ship a cross platform Struts (java) based application and needed a simple, low maintenance, low overhead, cross-platform,truly free and fast sql engine.
Enter Firebird. Installation is a breeze under both operating systems and its all plug and play after that.
MySQL is nice but can be a maintenance headache and good luck included it in a shipping product, it violates the license or so the lawyers tell me.
I use mysql on my webservers, I embed firebird in my shipping products. Its been great so far!
It was once Netscape... until they screwed up in the market so bad that they gave up on it and released the source as:
Mozilla... until it became so bloated and overdesigned (and dangerously close to a movie company's trademark on a mutant lizard) that they had to start over as a project called:
That's a bit harsh - how about unfair competition? Anyway, "Mozilla" was the internal codename for Navigator at Netscape. It has always been it's name and it still is today (now for the whole suite).
To quote the "Freeing the Source: The Story of Mozilla " :
Mozilla was a term initially created by Jamie Zawinsky and company during the development of Navigator. The team was working at a similarly frantic pace to create a beast vastly more powerful than Mosaic, and the word became the official code name for Navigator.Firefox... which, (assuming they finally did their homework and checked on trademarks) is actually the best name since the original "Netscape".
They better! The name is catchy and the logo is quite beautiful. Try "Help" > "About Mozilla Firefox".
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
This isn't static data functionality - it's standard data warehousing functionality.
And none of the open source databases have yet caught up with the features that the commercial databases have been adding over the past seven years in support of this.
Still, I've used postgresql for some reporting, and it isn't the end of the world to drop back to older technology in warehousing. But the lack of materialized views isn't the real issue - it's the lack of any form of partitioning.
The documentation on the sight is dated / plagued:
...
"Last 10 Releases"
31-Dec-1969 firebird 1.5.0-Release (Source)
1969? That's a neat trick. Hopefully development is a little more dedicated than documentation.
Looking at the list of who's deploying the DB on which platforms, the organization list is impressive, but where's current information?
"This page was last updated on 2000-12-31 21:23:04 -0400" doesn't impart warm fuziness, nor do the few references to Linux kernel 2.2.x.
Who's managing the project, and why do they suck at advocating it?
Obviously you can generate duplicate rows any number of ways if you include non-unique column combinations in your SELECT.
In any rate, because SQL allows you to create a table *without* a primary key (which then means that result sets can have duplicate rows) then it is not relational. End of story.
No one is saying that SQL is double-plus ungood, just pointing out that it is not relational (just as saying that 2+2 != 5, and the sky is not made of fish), and don't attribute deficiencies of SQL to deficiencies of the relational model.
You can begin to understand how Date and Pascal et al at DBDebunk.com feel if you consider the following scenario (this thought exercise presupposes that perfect is possible):
Now that this long-winded description is over you can replace The Perfect Car with The Relational Model and "Perfect Car" Implementations with {Oracle, MySQL, etc.}. You can replace "New Perfect Car Models" (including "Without Significant Scientific Background") with {XML, OO-DBMS, 'Persistence Layers', etc.}.
No one is saying that you cannot use SQL products or XML, or that you cannot accomplish tasks in these tools, just that when used in the context of data management they are poorly solving what the Relational Model already solved.
Because IT practitioners are poorly educated and increasingly fad-driven they latch onto non-solutions (like XML, "Post-Relational", OO-DBMS, etc.) and put little or no pressure on DBMS vendors to get it right. Even worse, if someone does release a Truly Relational DBMS there are no guarantees that anyone will buy it due to the ignorance of the IT community.
Put simply: People don't know what they're missing, so they don't know to ask.
Thanks,
--
Matt
RowIDs typically are:
1) Not visible to the user
2) Based on physical (e.g. on-disk) row placement (e.g. Oracle's ROWID pseudocolumn)
Both of these are violations of the relational model.
If, however, every table had a unique sequence number or something, then sure they would not be materially in breach of the uniqueness constraint. However, remember that result sets are *also* relations so you would have to have DISTINCT appended to every SELECT statement to also pass the uniqueness test.
Thanks,
--
Matt
Is is just me, or is it kind of daft to declare that
"Firebird 1.5 is the first release of the Firebird 2 codebase"
I mean, if it's Firebird 2, call it Firebird 2, for crying out loud!
It reminds me of Sun, and their wonderful numbering "system" for Java:
"At the second JavaOne conference, Sun will announce version 1.4 of Java 2 Enterprise Edition, along with version 1.4.1 of Java 2 Standard Edition and JavaBeans version 2.9"
[Not a real quote, but close enough...]
My GF suggests Browzilla... (I won't dare suggest any name on the Firefox forum, they're getting very touchy about the subject!)
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
As far as I know google uses its own proprietory software not mysql.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Where are the moderator points when you need them?
Ok, I get that he's technically correct according to Codd. However, by his definitions, there isn't a database I've seen that fully implements the relational model. If you have an example of a mature, widely database system that qualifies as a relational database system, I'll stop calling Firebird and Oracle and DB2 relational. Until then, I'll let the marketers call their products whatever they want, because they've produced a useful product that's used by millions. Codd's research is useful, but the word relational has changed in meaning since his time.
Karma: Contrapositive
Does this new version still use "LOCKSMITH" for the backdoor password? Or has it been changed to something else?
yeah, that's really dumb of them.
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
A ballpeen hammer is a very useful tool for opening a can of paint, if that's all you have.
The marketers labeling it as a canopener doesn't make it one, however.
Relational Database has as precise a technical defintion as the do the laws of thermodynamics. If popular usage of the word thermodynamics, or marketing manipulation of the word, differs from the definition it isn't because the definition has changed. It is because those who misuse it are ignorant of what it means.
I'm sorry, I have to run now. The CD in my cupholder needs changing.
KFG
Well first up, I really don't know who was to "blame" -- I only know what I've read, and really it depends on who's writting! Mozilla used a name that the Firebird-SQL people were already using so they complained... it looks like they handled that badly, but the way the story gets re-told is that they orchastrated an email DoS attack, which I don't personally believe was the intent. Just some Firebird-SQL supportors took things the wrong way and wound up the Mozilla people.
Anyway, regardless, the issue has been resolved. The Mozilla folks now have a new name and a cool new logo to boot! The only thing that remains is people trolling when ever Firebird-SQL is mentioned.
Whether you believe Mozilla was right or wrong, you have to agree that at least Mozilla acted professionally.
I don't think anyone disputes this. It was all an unfortunate situation. But its all sorted now!!
Not if you use the hidden BACKDOOR!
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
Does it handle mailto tags or what?
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
can I use this in a comercial system? who do I pay what does it cost? I am learning python because it seems unencumbered. I am certainly willing (HAPPY) to contribute back any bugfix or enhancement I might need for my own use, (it would be a huge ego thing if I could contribute to a usefull open source project) The key thing is can I use it the "consulting-ware" for definition see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020507.html stuff I make my living from.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
Someone care to translate? What's the damn version? 1? 1.5? 2? How can 1.5 be a release on the 2.0 codebase??
I am lost.
Great! Then you owe me $699 for a license* to use Slashdot!
* binary only. no html or javascript. I am sympathetic to the problem you face caused by me.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I know it's a toy, but it's getting there eventually. MySQL already has nested subqueries, both in the WHERE or FROM parts. I am not sure they allow them to be in the SELECT portion, but that really important (can't you always simulate it if you are allowd to use them in the FROM part?).
Stored procedures and triggers are already in beta (i know, but that means they will be usable sooner), transactions are already there and work fine. They will stabilize.
This is a marginal benefit for very large companies but an incredible bonus and fresh air for small and medium companies. The free factor is making small and medium companies more profitable, taking away some of the benefits of being a monster company (ie: minimun size to be able to be profitable in a given business).
MySQL, Postgre or Firebird are suitable for 95% of the jobs IMHO.
unfinished: (adj.)
Anyone who's techie enough to give a shit about a relational database would not be confused by a web browser with the same name. They would be referred to in totally different contexts. So the Firebird people gave a lot of crap to the Mozilla people, and made us go through another confusing name change for no good reason.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
All of the stuff that MySQL lacked (and still lacks in usable form)
Alright, I'm somewhat of a beginner as far as databases are concerned. I've only really used MySQL, and admittedly, I've only used it for relatively small tasks so far... but what is it that MySQL lacks? Are there actual tasks that simply can't be done (I've noticed people saying InnoDB apparently helps), or is it just a matter of performance and efficiency? Are these important things that are missing, or just specialized features that I probably won't even need unless I'm dealing with monster, multi-gigabyte corporate databases?
And if MySQL is supposedly missing a bunch of stuff... then why are people still using it? Are there things it does better than the rest of the DB's out there?
I don't mean to start any DB Wars or anything... I'm legitimately curious here. The only reason I chose MySQL in the first place was because I needed a DB, and I recognized the name, and so far, it's done everything I've needed it to do... so unless someone can inform me of some crazy-amazing feature I'm missing out on, or can show me something that seriously outperforms MySQL (I'm running on a very slow system by today's standards), then I doubt I'll stop using MySQL anytime soon.
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
First, they are not RDBMS vendors. They are SQL (or quasi-SQL, as with Oracle and MySQL) DBMS (or quasi-DBMS, as with MySQL again) vendors.
Now, answers are easy. You might as well ask why it took Apple 20 years to have a real OS, or why MS don't have security at all. Do you want it spelled out? Ignorance, they are too rich, lazyness, and shoot-the-messenger, NIH mentalities.
Just take a look at my own Relational DBMS implementations list at DMoz. Not all listed there are truly relational, but the best approximations at their own time. You can even get free downloads. None is SQL compliant.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
That is one thing you should never do. Never ever trust any web site as authoritative.
What could be good for you is to read the arguments critically, and think. Perhaps even get a book, either on you library or buying it -- Date's _An Introduction to Database Systems_ *is* the standard reference textbook in the area, so it's worth it.
BTW, all caps in a title is perfectly accepted practice.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Anyway these are not sets, therefore not relations.
How'd ya feel if I invented an algebra where almost always gave a number as a result?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Perhaps because people who have been trained instead of educated don't want to hire people who have a more solid knowledge than themselves?
Seriously, thanks, I've got a job now. Just forgot to update my .sig... will do RSN.
Stop short that paradigm crap. It is a theory, not a (ill-defined) paradigm.
Now, how would you feel if you had had a Math teacher who had taught you his own invention of a nifty algebra notation that didn't conform to the applicable Mathematical theory? Cheated, furious, or what?
The Relational Model pertains not to the physical level (DBMS engines) but to the interaction level (data languages). SQL is not relational. Therefore, a SQL DBMS is not relational, no matter if its engine is capable of supporting a relational language too.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
That was my point, that they are in error.
That such a fundamental error is propagated even by DBMS implementors speaks truckloads about levels of knowledge in the industry.
It was meant to. Only that IBM suits have put programmers in charge of the project (System R), programmers who never got the relational model at all, and steadfastly refused to hear input from Mr Codd (the RM inventor) and others, so in the end Mr Codd left IBM in disgust. He got sick and had to stop evangelising the RM, and all these unrepentant SQL vendors never offered him anything for his invention.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
At this list there are some. Not all of them are mature or fully relational, but all are better than SQL was at their own time. Some are available, and at least one used in production systems.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
More insightful information on the differences between SQL-DBMS and R-DBMS is on DB Debunk
OT: Have to post AC, have been modding.
If you use Borland Delphi (a Pascal-like language and development environment under Windows), then naturally you use Interbase for its RDBMS server. Then when you want to deploy that system and you need a dedicated database server, you can easily install Interbase on Win or Linux, or even better (IMO), Firebird instead.
So was AOL Legal wrong?
Legally? probably not. Ignoring the lawyers though, this kind of namespace collision should be avoided in the OSS community just as a matter of principle. People get confused as it is knowing what program to use for what.
Finkployd
The Relational Model pertains not to the physical level (DBMS engines) but to the interaction level (data languages).
No it doesn't. It pertains to how the data is logicaly structured. Nothing at all to do with the language you use to interact with it.
SQL is not relational. Therefore, a SQL DBMS is not relational, no matter if its engine is capable of supporting a relational language too.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. SQL may not be purely relational, but the language you use to work with the DBMS does not dictate wether or not the DB is relational.
Many RDBMSses allow you to use langauges other than SQL to interact with the data, in fact. In postgres for example, you can write stored procedures in other programming langauges. I hear Oracle has similar capabilities with Java.
In theory, you can create queries on your schema in any of these RDBMSes in relational algebra. You'd have to translate that to SQL to actually use it, but doing so does not make your database non-relational.
The language must follow the logical structure, can't you see that?
OK then, you could create a DBMS without a proper language, just an API. But that is not the case in SQL, nor in D&D's D.
First, these aren't RDBMSs you are talking about, but SQL DBMSs. Because they don't support any relational languages, they don't support relational databases (that's what you mean by 'logical structures'), and even if they did, SQL access would break Codd's 12 rules.
BTW, Alphora Dataphor do is a RDBMS (they call it 'virtual' for they don't yet have a storage engine), and it does have something like SQL. But to preserve the database sanity, they had to severily change SQL, creating a sanitised 'RealSQL'.
Second, these other languages do have to conform to SQL's limitations and stupidities, inclusive because the database is defined in non-relational SQL, and because SQL does mixes the logical and physical structures.
Do that. Seriously, try it. Now how will that fare with databases defined with duplicates, NULLs, without real user-defined types etc?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Thanks. I'll check them out.
Karma: Contrapositive
First, these aren't RDBMSs you are talking about, but SQL DBMSs. Because they don't support any relational languages, they don't support relational databases (that's what you mean by 'logical structures'), and even if they did, SQL access would break Codd's 12 rules.
I will give you that most currently available DBMSes do not fully adhere to Codd's 12 relational rules (namely 6,7,9 and 12). But I don't see how adding SQL will break a database's conformance to the rules. Specificly which rules will be broken?
Second, these other languages do have to conform to SQL's limitations and stupidities, inclusive because the database is defined in non-relational SQL, and because SQL does mixes the logical and physical structures.
How does SQL mix the logical and physical structures?
you can create queries on your schema in any of these RDBMSes in relational algebra
Do that. Seriously, try it. Now how will that fare with databases defined with duplicates, NULLs, without real user-defined types etc?
I'll also concede that you can build a database in postgres or oracle that breaks the relational model (by allowing duplicate rows, for instance), but you don't have to create such a database in these DBMSses.
Allowing non-relational access to the database. Allowing duplicates, and non-values.
For example, views are non-updateable relations.
OK, here we agree. You can always define keys, always use SELECT DISTINCT. It is just that it is a pain, will perform poorly and be severily limitated as compared to relational systems.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
No imagine that i purchased PC off-the-shelf. Imagine there is Linux pre-installed. Now imagine that i try to install some other software, that need Firebird(DB) How soon i, beeing dummy, will realise that the Firbird browser, in which i read the help for theprogram is not the Firebird that program is asking for ? What if such a program is pre-installed to, and i will need an assistance? Those HowTo's written by superminds for superminds - will they make it clear for dummy me that 'start firebird' suggestion has nothing with 'launch Mozilla' ? What if both projects will choose to keep there configuration in same folder /etc/firebird ?
The very fact of FireFox name shows there was some point.
Though FibirdDB community indeed was not polite.
To some excuse may be 1st posts on Mozilla's forum when they choosed the Firebird title.
Someone pointed that the name was always taken - and immediately replied with notes like 'go away! who are You? No one knows of You! We are lefgion, We are power, get away from our marching'
Indeed it is hard to believe that no one had known of FirebirdDB project - Sourceforge is one of the famoust sites and type 'firebird' in Search box coul;d be a matter of 5 seconds.
Maybe it was, alas, frequent situation, when two are exchanging with blows and each new blow is 10% harder than previous one. It can rapidly come from slaps to killing.
You're lucky!!!
:-(
I started development for Intebase 5.1 and in a month i found 2 bugs, one of them made database unable to restore from backup. Just a specific order fo creating tables.
Dummy finding bugs, how would You like it?
And had You heard of merge of Firebird and Yaffil projects. Why... Some points are told in 'in the beginning' post. To continue it:
Later some developers from both teams were pricking themselves in russian Interbase usergroup.
Firebird was enhancing SQL, making Yaffil re-implement those features.
While Yaffil was too much faster, making Firebird team try to optimise their codebase.
It was a neverending reason of jokes.
And sure they were finding and fixing bugs. Each in their own codebase, with only limited help to each other.
By the way, Yaffil, and later in 1.5alpha Firebird too, had changed heap manager - and found reasons of 'Interbase is unstable under heavy load' rumours. There were place, where memory was freed, but still used after.
This spring 2 awfull bugs was discovered, one of them existed in Interbase 4.1 and maybe even longer back to the history.
There was legal way to make duplicate values in P.K.
It is amazing that no one stepped upon that 2 rooks ever before.
That was the last drops, working together on fixes the teams finally decided to merge back.
It will be interesting and, i hope, great story.
PS: i wonder if You will look through Firebird issue tracker, and try those bugs over Borland Interbase, wat will there be the result ?
PPS: Have Your heard of www.ibaid.com ? Alas, interbase _can_ crash the database.
For early IB6.0x it was enougth to grow database file 4gb of size, the next bytes were written into header
Small office never needed such amounts of data, but will they - they will certainly need mature DBA that knows about the issue.
Borland developed Interbase for years, and suddenly... Suddenly they tld they are no more interested in Interbase, so the project is discontinued.
:-)
there worst thing about commercial apps, is that once You may hear 'game over'.
The developers was shocked and even organised some movement to force Borland notto harry killinh Interbase. Thanks to www.mers.com
In about a year Borland reacted, telling here is You Interbase 6.0 - if You like it - take it and do whatever needed. Later they acted back with IB 6.5, but that is out of iinterest here.
They has been taken - by developers who resigned from Borland after that, especially those, who resigned from Digital many years ago to create the database, as Digital's chiefs were not interested in enhancing OpenVMS OS built-in database management.
Sure during this year they found themself a work and could not soent too much time on cleaning ex-IB6 code.
So the next year was spent for creating the community and finding sponsors.
This 2 years delay was so dark time, that 2 programmers in SaintPetersburg forked the stalled Firebird project and started Yaffil project (http://yaffil.ibase.ru, seems the fastest but Win32-only clone of Interbase)
Later there appeared new developers, some grants, fund, et cetera. But those two years were defenitely years of death.
Personally i treat 'Firebird' as sardonic codename, meant "We're still here after those years, are we dead or not?"
Currently, when life is back in Firebird, and after they together fixed some awfull legacy bugs, they desided to merge together again, but theis is another story...
..as soon as someone will create one.
Those PDF's that are on their homepage (http://firebirdsql.org/) are taken form Borland. You can distibute and read them but cannot change a single bit in them.
You see, nothing is locked.
Opposite, Helen Borrie (hope i did not misspelled) created the book on Firebird that is going to be published, do not know how detailed it is.
Year ago russian usergroup created a book too (most efforts was from developers of www.devrace.com), though it is more like 'getting started', things You must know, and things You must be interested and searching beyond this book for particular kinds of work you need done.
Maybe You can read of that book at www.interbase-world.com, though it may appear - since no interest to the book was shown aside Russia - it may be omitted on English pages.
Aaahh! shame on me, i forgotten. 3 years ago a book in Germany was published.
Yopu see, 3 books it is not 'nothing'.
So why there is no documentation?
Simple. Try to make one *without* reading those PDF's and any derived from them information....
Can anyone do it?
That is like the disclamer at www.DotGNU.org that tells You never read any documentation, that has some license restriction, if You want to participate - cause after all Your work may be used to issue the whole project as pirated one.
Time is flying fast...
:-)
Not this spring, sure, but the last fall.
Merge was announced in December.
I remember those troubles was between winter and summer and...
Sorry, seems i am too longing for March
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Good opportunity to learn about the relational model and how SQL violates it!
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Not to get really pissy here, especially since my reply is somewhat tardy, but your statement "In any rate, because SQL allows you to create a table *without* a primary key (which then means that result sets can have duplicate rows) then it is not relational. End of story." is complete garbage. Relational does not refer to restrictions that the software imposes on the developer. Any database product that allows a developer to relate a record in one table to a record in another table is relational. "End of story." I can whip up a shitty Python app that satisfies this definition in a few minutes, and just because it isn't a ROFLSTFUIANALIMHODBMS doesn't mean it's not relational. Relational is an idea. Please try to understand that. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but you seem to have a sadly anal (and incorrectly so) way of looking at this. The first real thing I learned about databases was the difference between single-table, flat-file databases and multi-table, relational databases. Can you honestly tell me that what I do for a living is not develop relational databases just because you have such a narrow definition? I do not mean to offend, but I cannot let your statement stand uncorrected. I also apologize for using an "end of story" line in any way, as there often isn't anything definitive about computers or software.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Only like there is actually a need for a car that doesn't crash and drives you to your destination. Certainly you can get from point A to point B with any old auto now -- but it would be easier and safer if the car did that for you (presupposing that such algorithms could be written etc.)
The Relational Model is quite well-defined by Codd -- your assertions are quite false and make little or no sense. A series of "rules of thumbs" is available online - search google for Codd's 12 rules.
You are incorrect. A RDBMS is comprised of relations which have a very strict mathematical definition. Their set-theoretic background rules out duplicate tuples (rows) - sets do not contain duplicates. A relation that allows duplicates is no longer a relation by definition, therefore a DBMS which allows duplicate rows is not relational. Q.E.D.
You can logically model a RDBMS - but no such product exists to fully implement that logical model. You have to shoehorn it into a SQL DBMS which does not fully implement the relational model.
Try picking up a few good books/papers (Practical Issues in Database Management by Pascal, just about any of Codd's works, etc.) and reading them. You are obviously ignorant about RDBMS.
Thanks,
--
Matt