Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firebird 2.0 Final Released

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the reborn dept.

Databases 158

Samyem Tuladhar writes "After 2 years in development, the Firebird Project today officially releases the much-anticipated version 2.0 of its open source Firebird relational database software during the opening session of the fourth international Firebird Conference in Prague, Czech Republic."

cancel ×

158 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally... (5, Funny)

Bourdain (683477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819542)

Now I can finally convince my friends to upgrade their web browser from Firebird 0.6 :)

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820014)

Ow my... I'm struck with Phoenix M18

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820586)

I thought the same thing when I read this. I thought Firebird had to change its name to Firefox because the name "Firebird" was the name of a car. Were these the guys who forced Firebird to change its name, or is there some reason why the company that makes Firebird cars has decided not to threaten a them with a lawsuit as they did with Firebird?

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820600)

I thought about upgrading but I liked Firebird because it was less bloated. This release includes a whole relational database system! Maybe Mozilla suite wasn't so bad after all :(

firebird is a very poor database. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819544)

my experiance with firebird is that msaccess is a lot better.

Re:firebird is a very poor database. (5, Insightful)

Bourdain (683477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819822)

if you've seen "hacking democracy" (the hbo documentary on Diebold), you'll notice that their database is MS Access -- I'm anything but a software developer, but in my use of Access (granted Access 2000), I've seen enough inconsistent operation to be very careful about just client data for quick small analyses, let alone vote data integrity

Re:firebird is a very poor database. (5, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819872)

"if you've seen "hacking democracy" (the hbo documentary on Diebold), you'll notice that their database is MS Access -- I'm anything but a software developer, but in my use of Access (granted Access 2000), I've seen enough inconsistent operation to be very careful about just client data for quick small analyses, let alone vote data integrity"

In that documentary, I also heard the main woman attacking Diebold exclaim that "Release Notes" are a legal document that must legally show all changes made to their source code. And on top of that, the researcher who was tasked with viewing the contents of the Diebold memory card's means of looking at it was "Buying a memory card reader on the internet", where the Diebold card slid in nice and easy, and he was able to see the contents of the card plain as day (even quoted saying there are "living things" on it, referring to so-called executable code. The thing he purchased online even had the fancy words "Memory Card Reader" on it!

Obviously, don't take everything you see in an HBO Documentary to heart. Some of the topics they touched on in that documentary were true and accurate, others were ... we'll say "beefed up" to make their case look bigger/stronger.

Mod parent back up, please (0, Redundant)

linuxmop (37039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820098)

There is no "-1, Heresy" mod despite what some moderators might think.

Mod parent up (1)

BostonVaulter (867329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820122)

The parent post is in no way deserving of a -1 flamebait.

How does this compare? (2)

IcEMaN252 (579647) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819550)

I must admit to be rather ignorant of Firebird, how does it compare to other RDBMSs out there?

Re:How does this compare? (3, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819644)

While I have never used it myself, I have heard nothing but praises from it, including from the Microsoft programmer community side. It is supposed to be full featured, quite fast, and can be used as an embedded database by just shipping a single DLL (on Windows, dunno how it goes on Unix side of things) with your app, thus allowing for a lot of flexibility. It has a lot more feature than even most commercial embedded database, and is supposed to be very easy on the developer, and its drivers are quite complete for java, .net, etc.

Re:How does this compare? (1)

BitwiseX (300405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820444)

My company starting using a Firebird based Windows application not too long ago. One thing that irked me. You couldn't use the app via Terminal Services because it wouldn't see the database. Granted I could log in via the console to run updates and such, but we had hoped to have multiple users access it via the RDP on the server we ran it on. Fairly easily worked around, but it was kinda a bummer.

Re:How does this compare? (5, Informative)

jozeph78 (895503) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820130)

We used it at my last shop, maintaining a database file for each "project" and a master database to keep track them. Keeping it in it's realm, it's leagues beyond HSQL or Derby and other databases I've worked with of it's caliber.

It was not without the quirks and kludgey features expected of a 1.0 database. Some of the unusual things (to me) were setting a Term character for scipts, lack of "if exists"/"create or replace", "suspend" in procedures, and identity ID's via triggers. That said, it had triggers as well as fully functional stored procedures, user defined functions, custom exceptions to deliver nice error messages to your JDBC layer and even a simple c API to write low level custom functions that were easily compiled into the db.

The guys always made fun of FireBird for being slow until I replaced rebuilding a hierarchical structure via java (single JDBC call per record) with a recursive stored procedure (single JDBC call for collection in order). JDBC usually incurs a good deal of overhead but I've never seen it so costly as in this case. Removing this JDBC overhead brought the longer running cases of 30-40 seconds (consider this lag opening a word document), down to 1-2 seconds. So the query engine of FireBird is quite efficient considering you know how to sweet talk it. :D

In the process of writing that procedure I discovered that the documentation for FireBird is actually quite good, albeit somewhat confusing with the Interbase/Firebird ambiguity. What I couldn't find in the documentation I found in a rather active FireBird Yahoo Group (may have been Google, whatever).

Don't go comparing it to MySql, PostGRE, Oracle XE, or MSSQL Express. I'm not sure how the performance for databases larger than the amount of available memory will work meaning, I've never profied the IO performance. Still, it's a great alternative to storing complex data structures as binary files or stubbing a prototype db for rapid development.

Ultimately, I'm excited about the new release of FireBird. Kudos to the team.

Guess they were right to complain (5, Funny)

ghazban (28784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819560)

Who else thought this must be old news or a dupe after reading the title! I think they should change their version number to avoid confusion... Firebird v2.3-notawebrowser.

Re:Guess they were right to complain (1)

denttford (579202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819836)

Yup. Especially since I just loaded this page immediately after a FF 2.0 crash.
Maybe someone should tag this story not-a-firefox?

It's got to suck to be a developer of a useful project and have another one start up and steal some of your thunder (err... no pun intended).

DUPE! (5, Funny)

damiena (263598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819570)

Come on editors... They changed the name to Firefox how long ago? Not only that, but 2.0 was released like 3 weeks ago. I could of sworn I saw an article on slashdot even... Way to read your own site.

Oh, with... this is a database? Hmmm... they should probably change their name so that people won't get confused all the time.

Re:DUPE! (0, Redundant)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819614)

They did.
The Firebird team got very bent over the Firebird browser so they mozilla changed it to Firefox....
I thought they where being idiots since who would confuse a browser with a database...

Re:DUPE! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819848)

Whooshity whoosh woosh.

Re:DUPE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820670)

It's "have", "'ve" or "'ave". Not 'of'.

Huh? (2, Informative)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819576)

Firefox, Thunderbird, Firebird...

I'm confused.

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

GoogolPlexPlex (412555) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819586)

Thunderfox

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819666)

"Thunderfox"

Ice Weasel!

Alright, alright, I'm going, I'm going...

Re:Huh? (1)

Edis Krad (1003934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819894)

You mean this [sourceforge.net] ?

Re:Huh? (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819982)

Sea Monkey?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820546)

Thunderfox Ho!

Re:Huh? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819602)

Well, the firebird was one of the previous names of Firefox, and they changed it to avoid confusion with this very database. Guess it didn't work on you :)

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

astrosmash (3561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819790)

Firefox's original name was "Phoenix", as the browser was meant to rise from the ruins of the old Netscape/Mozilla application suite. The Phoenix BIOS guys complained that people would confuse Phoenix the browser with Phoenix the BIOS, so they changed the name to Firebird, which is still quite a bit like a phoenix. Then the Firebird database guys complained for the same reason. Thus the name Firefox was born, a trademark now vigorously defended by the Mozilla organization.

It didn't work, though. My first thought when I read this article was that it's some Mozilla project. The Firebird guys would have been better off renaming their project, since few people had heard of it anyway. And my new computer doesn't even have a BIOS.

Re:Huh? (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819940)

I've had no experience with new computer technology, but I thought the BIOS was pretty much an essential part of the computer. Could someone please explain how a new computer can 'not have a BIOS'?

Re:Huh? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819974)

He most likely means his PC has EFI Firmware, meaning his new PC is probably a MacBook.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819992)

EFI is the newest incompatible BIOS replacement.

Re:Huh? (1)

shadowmas (697397) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819996)

I think the poster is confused by not being able to see the BIOS since nowadays most BIOSes display a splash screen or a blank screen making it look like as if it's no there.

Either that or he has a very different computer indeed.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820296)

Or a Mac. ;-)

Re:Huh? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820326)

Or an Amiga. ;)

Re:Huh? (1)

DrKyle (818035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820386)

With a userid of 3561, I think he has been around slashdot long enough to know the Basic Ins & Outs of his System. So I wouldn't assume he's being tricked by some flashy screen.

Re:Huh? (1)

tygt (792974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820240)

Maybe he just keys in the OS from the front panel... is his name "Seymour"?

Re:Huh? (1)

starwed (735423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820314)

It wasn't confusion with the BIOS that was the issue. I was never completely clear on the complete details, but the key point was that Phoenix Technologies had registered a trademark for some sort of browser, using the name Phoenix.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

mdfst13 (664665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819970)

"The Firebird guys would have been better off renaming their project,"

How so? I doubt that /. would have posted this story if it weren't for the name confusion. I certainly wouldn't have know what Firebird was if not for Mozilla.

BIOS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820162)

And my new computer doesn't even have a BIOS.
How does it smell?

Re:Huh? (1)

nateb (59324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820476)

And my new computer doesn't even have a BIOS.

So do you start the cpu up by hand then?

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819984)

Firefox, Thunderbird, Firebird... I'm confused

I think it's a song by Lynyrd Skynyrd.

It is a database people (3, Informative)

IntelliAdmin (941633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819606)

FireBird is a database system that has been used in many projects. It has nothing to do with Firefox or any browser or email client. Just go to the website to check it out

From the website: Firebird 2.0 is the happy culmination of more than two years' efforts from a broad-ranging, truly international community of dedicated developers and supporters. It brings with it a large collection of long-awaited enhancements that significantly improve performance, security and support for international languages and realise some desirable new SQL language features. Under the surface, it also provides a much more robust code platform from which the re-architecting planned for Firebird 3.0 is proceeding.

http://www.windows-admin-tools.com [windows-admin-tools.com]

Re:It is a database people (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819702)

What the hell is a database people?

Missing the Joke. (1)

Inominate (412637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819944)

Well Firebird the database is why Firefox got its name. So to say it has nothing to do with Firefox is wrong.

Thats why all the firebird/firefox jokes.

Re:It is a database people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820646)


http://www.windows-admin-tools.com/ [windows-admin-tools.com] [windows-admin-tools.com]


Why am I seeing post from this guy getting moderated 4/5 insightful/informative on every story, even though most of them are pretty obvious and redundant? Is this guy somehow spamming for his admin-tools website?

Really cool but... (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819642)

The problem is
99% of all open source projects that use a database support MySQL.
maybe 10% have some support for Postgres.
and I don't know of any that support Firebird.
We really need to see some more support for databases other than MySQl

Re:Really cool but... (3, Insightful)

griffjon (14945) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819652)

Or, and I know this may be a bit revolutionary, how about a database abstraction layer and support for anything that speaks SQL, brought forward to the user/administrator interface? I imagine most projects are using libraries that support this anyhow...

Re:Really cool but... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820068)

This works, to some extent. When you start doing anything relatively serious, you have to get out of the standard API. SQL is unfortunately not supported in a standard way, because the actual SQL standard is limited. So all serious RDBMS have to add custom features. Want to page your data server side? You either do 3 nested query using ANSI SQL, or you use one of the "proprietary" features and have it run in about 1/100th the time (number not out of my ass, it comes from benchmarks). Standard APIs are only valid for CRUD operation, and light business intelligence. For anything serious, like hardcore data mining, and you start having to go in the procedural sql code (T-SQL, PL/SQL, and so on) to work and manipulate sets of data, and thats about as standard across databases as CSS is in Internet Explorer.

Re:Really cool but... (1)

pdpTrojan (454023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819656)

MySQL has a monopoly! Down with OSS!

Re:Really cool but... (1)

Ankur Dave (929048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819704)

Why, though? MySQL or PgSQL are fine -- feel free to explain why others are better.

Re:Really cool but... (5, Funny)

aligma (682744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819722)

"and I don't know of any that support Firebird." Its the other -9%.

Re:Really cool but... (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819768)

I believe he meant that some overlap, i.e., support both MySQL and PgSQL - supporting two competing products in the same function category is not illegal you know. Unless of course it's vi and emacs, but I didn't even have to say that.

Re:Really cool but... (4, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819766)

99% of commercial applications that can pay your rent and put bread-and-butter on the table use Oracle, Sybase, DB/2, or SQLServer/Sybase10.

100% of applications that I'd trust with any personal data like credit cards run under the first three of those databases.

For applications that don't have such stringent requirements, you might want to pull your head out of the smelly sphincter of non-standard MySQL syntax and try working with something that can handle joins of more than 5-7 tables without crumbling. Firebird happens to be one -- it's the open sourced version of Borland's database engine, which has kicked MSAccess around the block on performance and standards compliance long before it was open sourced.

With a couple years of additional development, I expect the new version probably does an even better job of supporting ANSI92 SQL and common language drivers.

What I can't understand is why everyone still goes ga-ga over MySQL. It doesn't follow standards for syntax, it doesn't scale for statement complexity, and it's reputation for reliability and recoverability is deservedly bad.

Don't get me wrong. Use what works. But there are so many application profile variants that it's quite narrow minded to presume one database fits all, especially when you try to pick the weakest runt in the litter as your panacea.

Re:Really cool but... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820034)

The only reason people go ga-ga over MySQL is name recognition. Since the last version, I understand that it doesn't suck anymore, so thats great. But it sure as hell used to. PostgreSQL is great, but some of the legacy code in it probably can make Windows' code base look clean (they had to get someone from Summer of Code to try to clean up the DISTINCT code because it was beyond horrible, for one). Firebird's supposed to be pretty darn good, I need to try it (Frans Bouma, a fairly well known Microsoft MVP recommended it fairly frequently, so it caught my attention recently)

Re:Really cool but... (2, Informative)

ninjaz (1202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820188)

What I can't understand is why everyone still goes ga-ga over MySQL. It doesn't follow standards for syntax, it doesn't scale for statement complexity, and it's reputation for reliability and recoverability is deservedly bad.
I think it is mostly due to historical reasons, and because MySQL hangs out in the sweet spot for many uses. I started using MySQL in 1997. In 1997, the only free SQL databases around for skunkworks projects were MySQL and miniSQL, version 1 of which had a single-threaded engine making it unusable for multi-user applications like anything on the web, and its version 2 would returned random query results due to some persistent bug. Even PostgreSQL was looking unmaintained and wasn't a viable option.

At the same time, Linux, Free Software and web applications started taking off, so everyone started using it on Linux for SQL work since it was the only reasonable choice. Of course, once Linux became popular and corporate managers found out their companies used it, the big database vendors ended up porting, too, but MySQL had already gained its fame and was a free download.

Now that PostgreSQL and Firebird are around, I am pleased to see free software applications getting compatibility.

For what it's worth, working with MySQL has put quite a few loaves of bread on my table. ;) (along with Oracle, DB2, Sybase, PostgreSQL...)

Re:Really cool but... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820306)

What are you talking about? My punch cards kick Access around the block for performance.

Re:Really cool but... (2, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820418)

"What I can't understand is why everyone still goes ga-ga over MySQL. It doesn't follow standards for syntax, it doesn't scale for statement complexity, and it's reputation for reliability and recoverability is deservedly bad."

Let me try and explain it to you.

Mysql was first to market (the market of open source database engines) with the features that people really want. Full text indexing, replication, clustering, ODBC drivers, etc.

Now maybe their replication wasn't all that hot but it took five minutes to set up and it worked. It took posgtres years to get a replication solution and even then it's complex and hard to set up.

Maybe other databases have cool features like referential integrity and stored procs but you know what most people didn't care about those. They wanted a web site that could take hits and in order to do that they needed replication. No matter what postgres had until it had replication and full text indexing it just wasn't an option.

I am about to start on a new project and I really want to use postgres but you know what I am not going to. I am going to use mysql because my preliminary tests show that it's faster and I need clustering and replication. Slony only supports master slave, the slonyII wiki hasn't been touched in years. Never mind all the cool stuff postgres has, I can't use it. Too bad because I really like it.

Re:Really cool but... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820290)

phpBB supports it.

I think quite a few other things support it too.

Re:Really cool but... (1)

mccoma (64578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820564)

Does someone always have to bring up the "we already have X, why do we need Y" argument every-time someone announces a program? The answers is these people do not believe the current solution is the right solution, and they have something they believe is better.

whatza? *bird* ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819658)

They should really think about using another name. This one is very unoriginal and confusing.

Re:whatza? *bird* ? (2, Insightful)

mashmorgan (615200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819748)

I end u calling it FireBase most of the time !

Firebird is nice (3, Informative)

mashmorgan (615200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819686)

I' use MSSQL, mySQL and Interbase/firebird. Each has their own strengths but for me I've been using Interbase so when Firebird came on the scene I starting porting apps. Unlike some of the others, it was x-platform a long time ago and was/am using it for Stored procedures etc. Nowadays I tend to use mySQL as the syntax is more friendly to dev's eg month(), day() functions whilst on Firefird is extract(dateCol, 'month'). Overall its pretty cool and has its niche. Certainly faster that m$sql 2006

Re:Firebird is nice (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819904)

MySQL syntax might be easier, but it's also proprietary almost-SQL crap, on a database that's not exactly great (works OK for simple queries only, doesn't value data integrity, just starting to get features we've been taking for granted for ages like sprocs and transactions, poor clustering/replication, etc). It's the single worst DB I've ever tried (and it's not "free" either - it's dual licensed, pay for non-GPL stuff). If you want a better database (works, normal SQL, has the features it should, etc) at a good price e.g. always free (besides firebird), then try perhaps postgresql, or the free express editions from the big 3 vendors - it's usually sufficient for most projects. Anything beats MySQL. MySQL is to databases what VB6 is to programming. It might be easier, but it SUCKS.

And if you even were a SQL Server user, you'd know there's no such thing as MSSQL 2006, and claiming firebird is faster than MSSQL is truly laughable. I doubt you'd ever even SEEN it, much less USED it, or know anything about it.

Yeah, you have absolutely *NO* clue what you're talking about. 100% FUD.

Finally (-1, Redundant)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819688)

Finally, a new release of Firebird to compete with the new release of IE.

Slashdot editors trying to amuse us (2, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819714)

I wonder if this was posted simply to see what fun folks might have comparing the name to Firefox. I've only used Firebird once, and I wasn't a big fan (who knows, maybe 2.0 is better). I'm having a great time reading the comments though, so nice job /. editors!

What your post's syntax reminded me of (-1, Troll)

AEton (654737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819818)

I work for Firebird;
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cos some Slashdotters believe anything they hear.

Re:What your post's syntax reminded me of (1)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819878)

When it comes to Firebird, I certainly don't know what I'm talking about. This is why I stated I had only used it once a while ago, and now that I think about it, it was well over a year ago (since PostgreSQL 8.0 hadn't yet made it out of beta and we were evaluating Firebird vs. PostgreSQL vs. MySql for a web app).

Since we have you here ... can you educate us on why Firebird may be better than MySql or PostgreSQL or BerkeleyDB or other open source databases? This is a serious request - I honestly don't know enough about Firebird, and the release bulletin seems more geared to existing Firebird users (it doesn't help someone uninformed dimwit like me make a better comparison for future projects).

Thanks a ton!

Re:What your post's syntax reminded me of (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820186)

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.


Well you didn't help much by waltzing in, making some smells and riding away on a high horse. Care to mention specifics?

Re:What your post's syntax reminded me of (2, Interesting)

Phil Resch (447588) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820234)

He doesn't work for Firebird, it's an Internet cliche. It follows the standard form:

"I work for (insert company name); So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cos some (insert target group) believe anything they hear."

According to this Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on Fark.com cliches, it originated in this Fark forum thread [fark.com] (search for "I work for the U.S. Mint" about halfway down the page), but I've seen in take different forms in different places.

Just thought you should know.

Was That Resounding Yawn Much-Anticipated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819736)

Honestly....who is going to use this?

wait (-1, Redundant)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819740)

Wait a second - didn't they release Firefox 2.0 like over two weeks ago?

SCARY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819788)

What is the deal with that picture of the red bird? My god, it scared the crap out of me.

someone has to say it (0, Troll)

cain (14472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819794)

it's a wrap!

For those of you who haven't heard of Firebird... (5, Informative)

crazyvas (853396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819840)

Firebird (sometimes called FirebirdSQL) is a relational database management system offering many ANSI SQL-99 and SQL-2003 features. It runs on Linux, Windows, and a variety of Unix platforms. Firebird was programmed and is maintained by Firebird Foundation (formerly known as FirebirdSQL Foundation). It was forked from the open sources of InterBase from Borland.
More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebird_(database_se rver) [wikipedia.org]

Re:For those of you who haven't heard of Firebird. (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819898)

Firebird (sometimes called FirebirdSQL) is a relational database management system offering many ANSI SQL-99 and SQL-2003 features

So is PostgreSQL. Would anyone who has used both like to comment on relative levels of SQL support, ACID compliance, and speed on different workloads? All other things being equal, I'd take BSDL over MPL, but I'd be interested in hearing what Firebird does better than PostgreSQL (and vice versa).

Re:For those of you who haven't heard of Firebird. (4, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819986)

Well, one thing: Firebird can be used in embedded scenarios

Re:For those of you who haven't heard of Firebird. (4, Interesting)

Unordained (262962) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820454)

The big thing for me was ACID -- the damn thing has great transactional support. I still miss it now that I'm forced to work on Oracle ("serializable" mode in Oracle is nothing like real transactional support if you've been using Firebird for a while.) From everything I've read, Postgres caught up with Firebird mainly by, uh, borrowing their generational data architecture, but then somewhat surpassed it in terms of user-defined types/functions. It is still really stinkin' easy to install though, whereas my last experience installing Postgres was nothing but a nightmare. (I don't really mean that as a knock on Postgres -- I'm terrible at sysadmin-like tasks, so it's no surprise that I had trouble; rather it's amazing that Firebird was as easy as it was to install.) As far as I know, PHP always comes precompiled only with MySQL support, so both DB's require equal extra work. I used FB/C++ at my previous job (500 some-odd tables, mostly normalized), and I still use FB/PHP for personal projects (far smaller.) It's pleased me in both settings. Keywords: solid, predictable, tunable, extensible, expressive, safe, and not a freakin' fan-club hack job.

I do hear someone's been working on an oracle-compatibiliy feature for Firebird (support some of oracle's more interesting expressions), so that's a possible bonus, but I'm not clued in on the current project status. If you're in the market for better OSS databases, you might also consider SAP-DB (rebranded as MySQL's MaxDB.) Just seems like another oft-forgotten contender in that same general weight class.

Re:For those of you who haven't heard of Firebird. (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820896)

Installing postgresql 8.1 with windows was easy - it uses a nice standard windows installer.

PHP 5 (windows installation) includes the postgres dll (in fact it includes a dll for all supported databases). They stopped including mysql in favor of sqlite (due to changes in the mysql license and since most unix boxes already have the mysql client libraries installed).

How does it compare to IE 7? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16819842)


 

Persistent Storage (-1, Offtopic)

ankordinated (1013717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16819922)

Anyone interested in Firefox 2.0's new persistent storage feature can check out the demo i whipped up here [smashedcrabs.com] .

This is a total killer feature for me :-) Can't wait until other browsers support it.

Anyone know when Firefox 3.0 will get this feature?

MOD PARENT (me) DOWN (1)

ankordinated (1013717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820182)

talk about being a typical slashdotter and not RTFM.

MS-Access Replacement? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820064)

Can someone advise an inquisitive soul as to whether Firebird and its [database] engine, is a serious replacement to Microsoft's front-end (Access) and its Jet engine? I really miss the flexibility, the possibility of adding business logic, and level of configuration possible with Access. Is this possible with this latest Firebird?

Re:MS-Access Replacement? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820112)

They are biaised, of course, but...look at this:
http://www.dotnetfirebird.org/blog/2005/01/firebir d-and-microsoft-jet-feature.html [dotnetfirebird.org]

Especialy if you are using .NET (which is possible since you're in a Microsoft environment), know that the ADO.NET driver for Firebird is feature complete. I never used it myself, but having seen several comparison between Vista DB, Access, SQLite and Firebird, which I -beleive- to be the dominant embeddable database engines in the WIndows world, Firebird seems to come at the top in every way, and that was before 2.0 came out.

Not an Access replacement! (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820230)

Don't be so bent on "this is an MS Access replacement". Firebird is a full-featured RDBMS.

Check some information in this white paper [ibphoenix.com] .

Some info from that document:

"The project, implemented by the original developer of InterBase (Jim Starkey) was commissioned for SAS Institute, the world's largest vendor of business and medical statistics application software. SAS had made the decision in 2003 to move many of its business applications over from Oracle to Firebird."

"The largest Firebird database we have heard of is about 11 Terabytes and growing."

Hmm, maybe I should try this thing...

Re:Not an Access replacement! (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820566)

Hahaha, you're right, it is far more than an Access replacements. However, RDBMS are a dime a douzan. Full featured desktop databases are rarer, thus the "hype" about the whole MS Access replacement thing =)

When will we see a DB like FMPro on Linux (1)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820292)

Or for that matter, when might we see FMPro on Linux.
I've got nothing against SQL DBs. Horses for courses and all.

What i'm after is something similar to FMPRo where I quickly create a database from Raw data, manipulate it in some fashion, create a layout to present it nicely and have some scripts do stuff.
This is the beauty of FMPro. It simple, quick and to boot you can even create run-time solutions.
Yes, Filemaker is quite limited compared to "proper" RDBMS, but hey, I don't want to run a webserver to view my data and create reports.

Anway, I know it's slightly off topic, but a good place to ask the question.

Re:When will we see a DB like FMPro on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820724)

There's been a Filemaker Server version for Linux, but after v5.5 they dropped support, and there's no front end available.
You might take a look at Servoy, that's a client in a Java environment combining a Filemaker-like layout editor and a Javascript-like scripting toolkit. It can work with a variety of backend databases (yes, including Firebird, according to the specs).

Re:When will we see a DB like FMPro on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820758)

You should take a look at Servoy http://www.servoy.com/ [servoy.com] .
It's a RAD for making database applications on top of any SQL database.
It does pretty much what you are asking for.
It's 100% java (works with Apache Tomcat) so works on all major platforms and it's licensing scheme is way cheaper than FMPro.

Just my 2 euro cents.

Firbird's History (5, Informative)

secondhand_Buddah (906643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820352)

For those of you who don't know. Firebird is a fork of Borland Interbase. For a brief moment in time, Borland decided to open source Interbase, but quickly changed their minds about it. But, during the open source period, a group of developers siezed the moment, and created the fork.
Interbase has 20-25 years of development behind it (and therefore Firebird). It is stable, and used by many major corporations, including NASA, throughout the world. In terms of open source products, it probably has the MOST mature code base of ALL open source projects.
Interbase used to compete in the Oracle, Sybase marketspace, but lost considerable market share in the 1990's. What differentiates Firebird from most open source projects, is its history. Most open source databases have been built from the ground up, whereas, by the time Firbird came into existance, it already had 20-25 years of development in the source code base.

So while, the core dev team of Firebird is fairly small, poorly funded, and badly marketed, the potential still exists to turn this into a project that will compete strongly in the OSI DB arena.

Camaro (1)

SenatorTreason (640653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820410)

They should just rename it "Camaro". No Mozilla confusion with Firefox/Thunderbird, and we all know it's really a Camaro anyway except for the front-end. ;)

Hmmmm.... (1)

rahulkool (927588) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820424)

Isn't Firebird = Dragon :-/

Cross platform (2, Informative)

TrashGod (752833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820474)

I enjoyed using Firebird 1.5 for a small (24 table, 10,000 row) multiuser (8-12) database on Mac OS X (10.3, 10.4) and linux (RedHat 9, RedHat WS3, Debian) with the JayBird JCA/JDBC Drivers and Java. Everything worked cross-platform including declarative constraints, and the database export utility cleanly handled the endian change between PPC and x86. Firebird is an often overlooked FOSS alternative to Oracle.

Re:Cross platform (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820812)

an often overlooked FOSS alternative to Oracle

There are alternatives to Oracle, but none that I'm aware of are FOSS. If you actually need Oracle (and a lot of people using it don't), then Firebird simply isn't an alternative.

Most projects don't need Oracle, of course, and could well use an open source RDBMS instead.

ThunderFox (0, Troll)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820480)

I'm waiting for them to come out with a GUI interface called ThunderFox.

Re:ThunderFox (1)

mAriuZ (264339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820642)

we already have flamerobin.org [flamerobin.org] :)
sorry to disappoint you

i think one of our future projects may have an bird name but will not be thunderfox
maybe bird weasel or something ;)

Firebird vs the rest (2, Insightful)

ras (84108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820804)

A seemingly unbiased speed comparison (well at least not biased towards Firebird, anyway) can be found here: http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=SpeedComparis on [sqlite.org]

As for features: it has them all. ACID, triggers, stored procedures, will maintain identical copies of the one database on two drives for you, etc, etc. Possibly because of this when I went looking for a database to replace Oracle it seemed to be the one most recommended. At least one commercial vendor has an add on that provides the one thing missing in this role: a stored procedure language compatible with Oracle's PL/SQL.

And yes, I am a happy Firebird user. But not for any of the reasons mentioned so far. I use it because it is dammed easy to bolt onto your current project. No configuration. Small footprint. Ports to anything. Zero ongoing maintenance. That is its heritage you see - it always was a bolt on library for applications that don't even mention the word SQL in their description. So Firebird is doing its job well if the end users and sysadmins aren't aware of its existence. Think about that when you are next tearing your hair out trying to set up some MYSQL database when all you wanted to do is install some tiny web app someone else in the office asked for.

And that leads us to what turns most people off. There are no flashy front ends out of the box. Is comes with three utilities of note: backup, restore and isql: all very simple command line tools. Its an embedded database - you are meant to provide the front end yourself. And the doco, while present, is patchwork of old stuff and separate "changes since ..." files.

But if you are need a backend for a application that doesn't parade its "SQL" credentials Firebird is one possibility. The others are sleepycat (for speed) and SQLLite (for simplicity). You'd be nuts to use anything else, and I wish a lot of projects out there hadn't.

Firebird 2 cheat sheet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820818)

Firebird 2 Cheat sheet [alberton.info] , listing useful information about Firebird 2 such as its data types, its internal and UDF functions, some useful queries and the php ibase functions.

Typo in the post (0, Offtopic)

nileshbansal (665019) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820822)

The name was changed to IceWeasel and not Firebird. Editors please correct.
PS: Anyway this story is running late, IceWeasel 2.0 was released on Oct 24rd.

Firefox 2.0 (-1, Offtopic)

RobertPercival (1026472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820864)

In my opinion, Firefox 2.0 absloutely rocks. Antiphising function and JavaScript 1.7 support are great!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>