[PLUG] MS Access Equivalent

[Cliff Wells]

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 12:23, Holger Stephan wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 10:28, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > > I'm on a contract to analyze my client's ERP system and look for
> > > replacements. They have a bunch of supplementary Access databases they
> > > use for reporting and data mining. Just two users on it to dig up the
> > > data for others. Works like a charm and costs next to nothing. Should I
> > > tell them to scrap it because Access doesn't count in db reality? 
> > 
> > Not at all.  But that isn't what you said.  You said you wanted an
> > *equivalent* to Access on Linux, not Access itself on Linux.  Besides,
> > if it works so well, why are you looking elsewhere?
> 
> That was just an example of where Access works well. I was asking for a
> different application (that of my partner in a different venture). 

Okay, then let's stick with what you're trying to accomplish and argue
the merits of Access *there* rather than in hypothetical or unrelated
ventures.

> > > Or my own situation: my partner can create the Access reports for our
> > > material lists in matter of hours. With any other system I know it takes
> > > days or weeks.
> > 
> > That sounds more like "systems you *don't* know".  If other systems take
> > you that much longer, it's most likely because you aren't familiar with
> > those systems.
> 
> That's not only because of familiarity. I was looking for a system that
> is close to as easy and quick to handle as Access. With my partner's
> basic knowledge of databases and experience with Access he would be OK
> with learning a new system if it is not much more tedious to get things
> done with it. 

What is it about Access that makes it easy to use?  Honestly I found
MySQL to be far simpler than Access from a database perspective and
Python far simpler than VB (and more powerful as well) from a
programming POV.  So when you ask for something "like" Access, you
really should decide which features it provides that simplify life for
you (or your partner).  If it's the GUI-painter, then look for IDE's
that provide such a feature, if it's the administrative tools, then look
for those.  If it's the whole integration thing, then you probably won't
find it (yet).

> > > There are a lot of database situations with less than 5 users.
> > 
> > True.  And more than 1 user is a problem for Access (using JET).
> 
> Not true since Access 97. 

It was 97 I used.  It sucked.  Constantly corrupting data.  It sucked
differently when I tried using ODBC to access MySQL to avoid the
corruption (constant claims that the database was "locked").  In the end
I saved time by just skipping the whole Access thing and writing a
front-end in Python for the MySQL database.

> > >  And there are and thousands of Access applications out there that help
> > > coordinating the economy. 
> > 
> > Are you referring to the US economy?  That would explain a lot ;)
> 
> World wide. And it's very often a better thing than a $1mil SAP
> installation that may never really get done and drains the budget to an
> extend that a healthy upgrade path can't be followed. 

Er, who mentioned SAP or $1mil?  I thought we were talking open source
solutions (specifically database servers) versus MS Access.

> > > Years ago I built an ERP/sales tool with
> > > Access and sold it to companies with 2~15 users. I moved away and on,
> > > don't support it any more but they still use it as the main tool for
> > > bidding, ordering and invoicing, warehouse management and stuff. 
> > 
> > And have you actually followed up to see these user's experiences?  I'm
> 
> Yes. They love the system and preserve boxes just to make sure it does
> not get killed by updates. That's one of the big drawbacks of Access. It
> is an Office component and so much integration can cause plenty of
> problems. 

Undoubtledly.  However, in all fairness, updates and headaches aren't
exclusive to Microsoft.

> > > If we want to compete against an established monopoly it doesn't help to
> > > ignore its strengths. 
> > 
> > Not competing.  Simply using the best tools.
> 
> With competing I mean trying to create or support other tools to break
> the monopoly and keep the market moving. Aren't we all on this group
> deliberately using less advanced tools for that purpose?

It depends on what you mean.  It's true that some of the tools I use
don't have all the bells and whistles of a MS product.  However, I've
found that all the flashy stuff means jack when it comes time to debug
an obscure problem.  OSS tools typically provide less obscure problems
than do proprietary products.  The development time saved by using a
fancy GUI builder will never outweigh the time saved by not having to
debug a bizarre interaction between DCOM, Access and a mouse driver from
3000 miles away ;)

> > 1. Gleefully ignoring reality since 1994.
> 
> It's a big world out there with lots of cracks and spots for those who
> create their own reality and still survive. 

I was referring to the date I started using Linux (against all the
realists advice to the contrary).  There is a fine line between being a
crackpot and being an early adopter. The simple fact was, it worked for
what I needed it to do.  There were no fancy GUIs or tools, but those
are just fluff for the most part anyway.  I think if you gave some other
tools a try, you might find the same thing about Access.  In most cases,
the GUI just makes it *appear* easy, it doesn't *really* make it any
easier.

> Not talking about you, but
> after seeing software developers taking years to develop something for
> their clients that is obviously not up for the task. Nobody checks the
> market and compares and so it becomes the accepted standard in this
> crack.

I guess my point is that Access does nothing that I can't do by hand in
about the same amount of time (and better).  If you are a programmer, I
would think you could do the same.  If you aren't then perhaps that's a
different story.  


Regards,

-- 
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726  (800) 735-0555