Pricing

[Anns via AccessMonster.com]

What does a typical Ms Access w/ native jet engine "no splitting" "only for 5
users" usually go for?

Request:

Inventory db w/ 8 user friendly forms & 8 reports.
Nothing fancy, I realize the prices can be scattered, but generally a GOOD
FAITH ESTIMATE what seems to be the normal price for a developer to charge?

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.c om
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200606/1

[Larry Linson]

"Rick Wannall" wrote

IMO=In My Opinion

You will also see IMHO (In MyHumble
Opinion), but rarely in this forum, where
honesty forbids such a disingenuous qualifier.

More often, here, you will see the perfectly honest IMNSHO.

"In My Not-So-Humble Opinion"

Larry

[Lyle Fairfield]

Larry Linson wrote:

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@ aim.com> wrote

> If you pay less you will get a piece of
> crap in this world or you will burn in
> the next for exploiting some bright and
> capable person.

Lyle, for people who disagree so often, we surely do agree on a multitude of
issues.

Just for the record you fall into the category of PWOIV (= People Whose
Opnions I Value).

Larry

Better check out the big foot in the mouth move I made by mistaking
Lauren Quantrell for Lauren Wilson before you sign off on that Larry!

[Larry Linson]

"Anns via AccessMonster.c om" wrote

If a client was to purchase a Ms Access
Database FE (User Face, Forms, Reports,
etc) and a BE on (let's say) SQL Server,
how would that developer get that whole
application to the client?
ANSWER:
It would be possible to transfer the application via either e-mail or FTP,
provided the client had a server database and a database administrator. Many
of us, however, only work in our own local area, so we work closely with
client personnel from inception through installation. Just because I am not
a "glutton for punishment," I would never, neither locally nor remotely,
offer an Access FE / Server BE to a client who did not already have the
server set up, or did not have a rational plan for setting it up and
obtaining a competent DBA.

Example: Would that BE/SQL be on there
SQL Server (they consistanly maintain -
via extra money contract) or would that
BE/SQL reside on the client?
ANSWER:
The client application (Access) and server (SQL Server or other) need to
reside on the same LAN, or at least WAN. One alternative would be to set up
a hosted server, and use Microsoft Terminal server over a Virtual Private
Network. Even with MTS, I'd prefer a LAN, 2nd choice a WAN, far 3rd choice
VPN over Internet. See earlier answer.

If it was to reside on the client side,
who would maintain the BE/SQL?
ANSWER:
The client's DBA would apply the maintenance and changes, or perhaps
implement them after discussion with the Developer. That could be either
local or remote, or the Developer could contract to be the client's DBA,
though I know of few who work that way.
Who would update the front end (ms access) on each desktop.
ANSWER:
It is trivially easy to handle updating the FE. I have an article at
http://accdevel.tripod.com about a very simple approach to "versioning " and
MVP Tony Toews has a free Auto FE Updater that you can download from his
site, http://www.grantie.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm.
Would it be possible to deploy a MS
ACCESS FE/BE - SQL Server via zip email?
Silly question, but I am trying to understand
how this scenerio above would work?
Do you mean, could the Developer be located remotely from the client, and
communication be via e-mail, with ZIPped files attached when necessary, or
files transferred via FTP, perhaps with a few telephone calls? If so, yes,
that is done frequently. I have local clients with whom I work _mostly_ in
that mode, but, believe me, there are times when it is most expeditious to
meet face-to-face.
I realize the USA must be different,
but there has to be common denominators
to this process (MS Access FE & SQL BE).........

There are those who will tell you that for _any_ serious business database,
you need to use a server (and they will have a favorite one), though they
may grudgingly admit that Access could be the front end. I have never known
anyone who took such a position to be someone who was competent with Access.
I have always known them to be trying to sell a more-expensive solution.

Those who are competent in Access _and_ client-server would delve into your
needs, and discuss with you the pros and cons of using Access-Jet
(multiuser) versus client-server in your own situation. It is unlikely that
we could have a sufficiently-detailed discussion in newsgroup articles to
arrive at a concensus for you.

I have worked on client-server database applications targeted for user
audiences of as few as 25. Perfectly acceptable response could have been had
with an Access-Jet multiuser implementation, but they had a strong need for
recoverability and reliability that could be obtained, simply, with a server
database.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

[Larry Linson]

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@ aim.com> wrote

Better check out the big foot in the mouth move I made by mistaking
Lauren Quantrell for Lauren Wilson before you sign off on that Larry!

Lots of us have tasted our own foot from time to time, Lyle. After you do it
a certain quota of times, it's like making a fool of yourself in public --
it just no longer holds any terror for you. (It's my stock answer for people
who ask how I can be so calm up in front of the user group.)

Likely, though, _you_ have some number yet to go for reaching your quota.

I've long since passed my quota for both the foot-in-mouth and
making-a-fool-of-myself-in-public categories.

Maybe Lauren will cut you some slack for "Senior Moments." <GRIN>

Larry Linson

* Just for the record, any invention I may have made of a
unique combination of words in this post, or other posts
in this thread, or other posts in this newsgroup, is NOT
copyrighted, unless so noted.

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.not> wrote in
news:wjJig.1063 8$Bj6.7779@trnd dc08:

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@ aim.com> wrote

Better check out the big foot in the mouth move I made by
mistaking Lauren Quantrell for Lauren Wilson before you sign off
on that Larry!

Lots of us have tasted our own foot from time to time, Lyle. After
you do it a certain quota of times, it's like making a fool of
yourself in public -- it just no longer holds any terror for you.
(It's my stock answer for people who ask how I can be so calm up
in front of the user group.)

Likely, though, _you_ have some number yet to go for reaching your
quota.

I've long since passed my quota for both the foot-in-mouth and
making-a-fool-of-myself-in-public categories.

Maybe Lauren will cut you some slack for "Senior Moments." <GRIN>

Larry Linson

* Just for the record, any invention I may have made of a
unique combination of words in this post, or other posts
in this thread, or other posts in this newsgroup, is NOT
copyrighted, unless so noted.

Sure it is. The way copyright works since the Berne Convention of
1978 is that everything in a fixed form is copyrighted by default.
The only way it cannot be copyrighted is if you explicitly declare
that what you've written is public domain and can be used by anyone.
Saying it's "not copyrighted" is not the same thing.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" wrote

* Just for the record, any invention I may have made of a
unique combination of words in this post, or other posts
in this thread, or other posts in this newsgroup, is NOT
copyrighted, unless so noted.

Sure it is. The way copyright works since the Berne Convention of
1978 is that everything in a fixed form is copyrighted by default.
The only way it cannot be copyrighted is if you explicitly declare
that what you've written is public domain and can be used by anyone.
Saying it's "not copyrighted" is not the same thing.

Perhaps, then, I had best retreive all my posts from years past, make the
requisite copies, and file for copyright so no one else can steal them
without fear of retribution.

IIRC, it is not legal to appropriate as one's own work and copyright public
domain material, but it is difficult to defend against that. It is much
easier to defend a copyrighted work.

In any case, the onerous Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the
currently-in-process addition making it more onerous have changed copyright
law considerably. Now, if I could only figure a way to put a r**tkit into a
text posting, I could be as villified as S*ny.

Larry

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.not> wrote in
news:Bu4jg.3654 $WM4.925@trnddc 01:

"David W. Fenton" wrote

* Just for the record, any invention I may have made of a
unique combination of words in this post, or other posts
in this thread, or other posts in this newsgroup, is NOT
copyrighted, unless so noted.
Sure it is. The way copyright works since the Berne Convention
of 1978 is that everything in a fixed form is copyrighted by
default. The only way it cannot be copyrighted is if you
explicitly declare that what you've written is public domain and
can be used by anyone. Saying it's "not copyrighted" is not the
same thing.

Perhaps, then, I had best retreive all my posts from years past,
make the requisite copies, and file for copyright so no one else
can steal them without fear of retribution.

No, you need do nothing at all. They are copyrighted by being posted
in a fixed form.
IIRC, it is not legal to appropriate as one's own work and
copyright public domain material, but it is difficult to defend
against that. It is much easier to defend a copyrighted work.
All of your posts are copyrighted.
In any case, the onerous Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the
currently-in-process addition making it more onerous have changed
copyright law considerably. Now, if I could only figure a way to
put a r**tkit into a text posting, I could be as villified as
S*ny.

You've lost me by this point.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" wrote

No, you need do nothing at all. They are copy-
righted by being posted in a fixed form.

I believe "reduced to tangible form" is the legal term.

IIRC, it is not legal to appropriate as one's
own work and copyright public domain
material, but it is difficult to defend
against that. It is much easier to defend a
copyrighted work.

All of your posts are copyrighted.

All my posts would not be copyrighted were I to declare them to be in the
public domain. The owner of a copyright that has been registered with the
Copyright Office has a better chance of prevailing and can qualify for
larger damages than the owner of an implied copyright.

In any case, the onerous Digital Millenium
Copyright Act and the currently-in-process
addition making it more onerous have changed
copyright law considerably. Now, if I could
only figure a way to put a r**tkit into a text
posting, I could be as villified as S*ny.

You've lost me by this point.

Acting under authority they thought had been granted by the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act (which does appear to give owners of intellectual
property to install software on your machine to protect it), Sony installed
a "thing" called a "rootkit" on the user's machine when certain Sony music
CDs were played. A "rootkit" is a virulent piece of software installed deep
in the bowels of your system, invisible to normal virus-checking software,
which, once installed, can somehow be a gateway not only to malware from the
creator of that rootkit, but other malware authors. When that was
discovered, there was a groundswell of resentment against Sony, who soon
recalled all the CDs that installed rootkits.

There is currently an extension to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in
the legislative process in the US Congress. I think it is probably a waste
of my time to write my Senators urging them to oppose it, because I wrote
them opposing the original DMCA and they voted for it anyway. Maybe I'll
write my Representative.

Larry

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.not> wrote in
news:6brjg.5680 $hN2.605@trnddc 05:

"David W. Fenton" wrote

No, you need do nothing at all. They are copy-
righted by being posted in a fixed form.
I believe "reduced to tangible form" is the legal term.

"Fixed in tangible form" seems to be the term of art, which is half
of yours, half of mine.

IIRC, it is not legal to appropriate as one's
own work and copyright public domain
material, but it is difficult to defend
against that. It is much easier to defend a
copyrighted work.

All of your posts are copyrighted.

All my posts would not be copyrighted were I to declare them to be
in the public domain. . . .

But you haven't done that, so they are copyrighted, by default.
. . . The owner of a copyright that has been registered with the
Copyright Office has a better chance of prevailing and can qualify
for larger damages than the owner of an implied copyright.
Yes, but an unregistered work is no less copyrighted than the
registered work.

In any case, the onerous Digital Millenium
Copyright Act and the currently-in-process
addition making it more onerous have changed
copyright law considerably. Now, if I could
only figure a way to put a r**tkit into a text
posting, I could be as villified as S*ny.

You've lost me by this point.

Acting under authority they thought had been granted by the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act (which does appear to give owners
of intellectual property to install software on your machine to
protect it), Sony installed a "thing" called a "rootkit" on the
user's machine when certain Sony music CDs were played. A
"rootkit" is a virulent piece of software installed deep in the
bowels of your system, invisible to normal virus-checking
software, which, once installed, can somehow be a gateway not only
to malware from the creator of that rootkit, but other malware
authors. When that was discovered, there was a groundswell of
resentment against Sony, who soon recalled all the CDs that
installed rootkits.

Yes, I know all about the Sony/BMG rootkit. Indeed, I removed it
from a client's PC a couple of weeks ago.

I just don't understand your point in going off on a DMCA rant.
There is currently an extension to the Digital Millenium Copyright
Act in the legislative process in the US Congress. I think it is
probably a waste of my time to write my Senators urging them to
oppose it, because I wrote them opposing the original DMCA and
they voted for it anyway. Maybe I'll write my Representative.

I think you should write both Senators and your Rep. Conditions may
change greatly in the Congress by the time the bill actually comes
up for a vote.

If we're lucky.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" wrote

. . . The owner of a copyright that has
been registered with the Copyright Office
has a better chance of prevailing and can
qualify for larger damages than the owner
of an implied copyright.
Yes, but an unregistered work is no less
copyrighted than the registered work.

Ah, but the registered copyrights are "more equal" than the unregistered
ones when it comes to _doing something_ about plagiarism. (That, I think, is
"fair use" of the wording from _Animal Farm_, isn't it? <GRIN>)
I just don't understand your point in
going off on a DMCA rant.

Whenever I think about the DMCA, I go into "auto-rant" mode, I fear. Perhaps
all will accept my apology for doing so here.

Larry