On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:40:03AM +0000, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > > to what level of strictness you can actually configure MySQL. And I'm > > not interested enough to find out - Firebird suits me just fine. > > I think an important point is that MySQL was freely-available long > before Firebird. I looked at it in around 2000 when working on a demo to > show a corporate, and rejected it because (a) it didn't have > transactions and (b) I didn't fancy telling their DP department, who ran > either Oracle or DB2 on a mainframe, that I was using something with > such a tacky name.
I looked circa late 2003-2005 timeframe, and while firebird was free then, it was not portable yet, and my "always on" server machines were PPC macs with linux or netbsd. > PostgreSQL has done fine for us since then .. so that is how I ended up with PostgreSQL too. Mysql was pre 5 and missed a lot of stuff, and I had seen the incompatibilities of the client lib time and time again, so it was disqualified. But Henry has a point. At a certain point one needs to revisit prejudices from the past (<5). Yes the defaults reflect its origins as a dumb store, but IMHO that is not enough reason to disqualify a RDBMS outright IMHO. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
