[PLUG] MS Access Equivalent

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:36 AM, Paul Johnson 
[SMTP:baloo at ursine.ca] wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:49:46PM -0700, Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> > Now, regarding whether a database server is superior to a client-based
> > database engine with file shareing, there are cases where the file 
sharing
> > system is superior.
>
> Until you discover that the file-sharing system doesn't handle
> simultaneous transactions cleanly and it's a great way to corrupt data
> over time.  Database servers are easier to set up, too, so it's best
> just do it the Right Way.

Well, MS bashing is fun, but Access has managed to pretty much wipe DBase, 
Paradox, et al. right off the map for a reason.  It works pretty well. 
 Also, JET is the file-based database.  Access is a database front-end that 
includes JET if that's what you want to use.  And for all the disadvantages 
of a file-based system, it has plenty of advantages.
Some databases need relational and weak ACID capabilities, but they are 
used more in the context of documents than in the context of repositories. 
 You want to be able to make copies and open them on the fly like 
documents, etc.  If server daemons are such a great idea, why doesn't 
Gnumeric install a spreadsheet server?  Regarding the file corruption 
issue, most Access database corruption (in the back-end data files) arises 
from faulty NICs on an unswitched LAN and rarely occurs on a 
well-maintained LAN.  I've supported systems in production for years that 
demonstrate this.
I'm not saying Access is perfect - I bitch about it every day, and 
Microsoft's new licensing, only a Mother could love.  Every time I look for 
something else with the advantages Access has for my clients, though, I 
don't find it.  I'm hoping Meargent or Open Office reaches a point where it 
can work as a viable replacement soon, but as yet, they're not there.