By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,491 Members | 1,868 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,491 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Linux

P: n/a
A client has moved a back-end data file to a Linux machine instead of
Windows. It now will only let one user log in at a time and gives some
sort of "admin file not found" error.

My first thought was permissions to create the LDB file but they swear
this is correct.
(read/write access for MDB & MDW files, read/write/create access in
folder)

Anyone come across a similar problem?
--
regards,

Bradley
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
57 Replies


P: n/a
The problem is that the file locking mechanism used by Jet is not available
on the Linux box -- so no multiuser is available.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"B.r.a.d.l.e.y" <br*****@comcen.REMOVETHIScom.au> wrote in message
news:40**********@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
A client has moved a back-end data file to a Linux machine instead of
Windows. It now will only let one user log in at a time and gives some
sort of "admin file not found" error.

My first thought was permissions to create the LDB file but they swear
this is correct.
(read/write access for MDB & MDW files, read/write/create access in
folder)

Anyone come across a similar problem?
--
regards,

Bradley

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40******@news.microsoft.com...
The problem is that the file locking mechanism used by Jet is not available

MichKa, where can I find documentation on the Jet file locking? I sure
would like to learn more about how that works.

Randy Harris
on the Linux box -- so no multiuser is available.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet Locking":

http://www.microsoft.com/accessdev/articles/jetlock.htm

Kevin definitely knows more about Jet and SQL Server (Windows CE edition)
locking than almost anyone else on the planet....

He is as long time MS employee (currently a Senior Program Manager) who just
recently celbrated his 10th year at MS. Back when he used to regularly speak
at Advisor conferences, he would constantly leak secret information about
Jet that he was probably not supposed to, the point where they started
making all of his talks covered by non-disclosure agreements to keep people
from blabbing later on.

Even though he was not always the most engaging speaker from a personality
standpoint, he routinely got high ratings and everyone was on the edge of
their seats hoping for the next bit of revealing information.... I have
always been a huge fan of his talks and tried to model that "talking to
colleagues about cool stuff they want to know" style because I figured it
would protect me from boring people if I ever slipped into that sort of
thing. :-)
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Randy Harris" <ra***@SpamFree.com> wrote in message
news:yS*********************@newssvr28.news.prodig y.com...

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40******@news.microsoft.com...
The problem is that the file locking mechanism used by Jet is not

available

MichKa, where can I find documentation on the Jet file locking? I sure
would like to learn more about how that works.

Randy Harris
on the Linux box -- so no multiuser is available.


--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies


Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
"B.r.a.d.l.e.y" <br*****@comcen.REMOVETHIScom.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:40**********@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
A client has moved a back-end data file to a Linux machine instead of
Windows. It now will only let one user log in at a time and gives some
sort of "admin file not found" error.

My first thought was permissions to create the LDB file but they swear
this is correct.
(read/write access for MDB & MDW files, read/write/create access in
folder)


It works as follows:

-Use Samba >2.2.7 and copy the backend to this share
-Read/write-permisssion for the users
-Install the frontend on every pc an connect the tables
-Read the doc readme2k.txt in the samba-share of the linux-box

Peter
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
"B.r.a.d.l.e.y" <br*****@comcen.REMOVETHIScom.au> wrote:
A client has moved a back-end data file to a Linux machine instead of
Windows. It now will only let one user log in at a time and gives some
sort of "admin file not found" error.

My first thought was permissions to create the LDB file but they swear
this is correct.
(read/write access for MDB & MDW files, read/write/create access in
folder)


I know nothing about Linux/Samba but is there also delete rights you can set?

As a followup to Peter's comment what version of Samba do you have installed?

Please post back what worked and what didn't so we'll all know for the future.

Thanks, Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a
I had been lead to believe that the newer SAMBA 2.0 emulates all the necessary
Windows networking features to allow successful sharing of Access files. I
haven't tried it myself, though.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 07:17:25 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
The problem is that the file locking mechanism used by Jet is not available
on the Linux box -- so no multiuser is available.


Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
Hmmm.... interesting. Now all one needs is a scenario where it makes sense
to use it? :-)
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:qo********************************@4ax.com...
I had been lead to believe that the newer SAMBA 2.0 emulates all the necessary Windows networking features to allow successful sharing of Access files. I haven't tried it myself, though.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 07:17:25 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
The problem is that the file locking mechanism used by Jet is not availableon the Linux box -- so no multiuser is available.

Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
Tony Toews wrote:
"B.r.a.d.l.e.y" <br*****@comcen.REMOVETHIScom.au> wrote:
A client has moved a back-end data file to a Linux machine instead of
Windows. It now will only let one user log in at a time and gives
some sort of "admin file not found" error.

My first thought was permissions to create the LDB file but they
swear this is correct.
(read/write access for MDB & MDW files, read/write/create access in
folder)


I know nothing about Linux/Samba but is there also delete rights you
can set?

As a followup to Peter's comment what version of Samba do you have
installed?

Please post back what worked and what didn't so we'll all know for
the future.

Thanks, Tony

Unfortuantely I haven't even seen the Linux machine or know anything
about it... but I will endeavor to finf out!!
--
regards,

Bradley
Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
Hi Michael

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet Locking":


I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:

I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...

Peter
Nov 13 '05 #10

P: n/a
As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper, but I am
almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and therefore
unsupported .

Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the scenario to
work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith that
they will never run into problems.

Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and compacts
over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any case
(including the original scenario).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
Hi Michael

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet Locking":


I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:

I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...

Peter

Nov 13 '05 #11

P: n/a
I have had a large Access 97 back-end on a Novell server for years and
rarely had problems compacting over the network. ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.

As for Samba and Linux, there was a long discussion last year in this group,
that did not recommended this combination. Has this changed with Samba 3x?

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper, but I am almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and therefore
unsupported .

Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the scenario to work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith that
they will never run into problems.

Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and compacts
over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any case
(including the original scenario).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
Hi Michael

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet Locking":


I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:

I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...

Peter


Nov 13 '05 #12

P: n/a
"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairinc.com> wrote...
I have had a large Access 97 back-end on a Novell server for years and
rarely had problems compacting over the network. ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.
The word rarely of course should bring up the caution flag. Have you ever
timed the difference between a network compact and a local one?
As for Samba and Linux, there was a long discussion last year in this group, that did not recommended this combination. Has this changed with Samba 3x?
Not sure. But it seems odd to be so anxious to push the evelope this way....
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper, but I

am
almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and therefore unsupported .

Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the scenario

to
work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith that they will never run into problems.

Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and compacts over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any case
(including the original scenario).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in message news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
Hi Michael

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
> See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet Locking":
>

I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:

I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...

Peter



Nov 13 '05 #13

P: n/a
At one time I had an "officially multiuser" backend on a Unix (HP-UX)
server. But it was a small DB and was used by a very small group of people
to record project information. I am relatively sure there never was more
than a one user at any given time, so though it was "officially multiuser",
practically speaking, it was "single user". I never had any problem with it.
Nothing was ever deleted, so bloat wasn't a problem, and I don't recall ever
compacting it.

JIC, though, I periodically made a backup copy to my own hard drive.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairinc.com> wrote...
I have had a large Access 97 back-end on a Novell server for years and
rarely had problems compacting over the network. ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.
The word rarely of course should bring up the caution flag. Have you ever
timed the difference between a network compact and a local one?
As for Samba and Linux, there was a long discussion last year in this

group,
that did not recommended this combination. Has this changed with Samba 3x?
Not sure. But it seems odd to be so anxious to push the evelope this way....

--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper, but I
am
almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and therefore unsupported .

Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the
scenario to
work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith
that they will never run into problems.

Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and compacts over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any
case (including the original scenario).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in

message news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
> Hi Michael
>
> "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
> > See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet

Locking": > >
>
> I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:
>
> I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
> 2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
> multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...
>
> Peter



Nov 13 '05 #14

P: n/a
Rarely is 2 or 3 times in 4 years the repair and compact failed. I never
confirmed if it was a network problem, I was able to restore from backup and
compact the database. Yes it is faster to backup locally but then I would
have to move the database to my local disk, compact, then move back to the
Netware volume.

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairinc.com> wrote...
I have had a large Access 97 back-end on a Novell server for years and
rarely had problems compacting over the network. ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.
The word rarely of course should bring up the caution flag. Have you ever
timed the difference between a network compact and a local one?
As for Samba and Linux, there was a long discussion last year in this

group,
that did not recommended this combination. Has this changed with Samba 3x?
Not sure. But it seems odd to be so anxious to push the evelope this way....

--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper, but I
am
almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and therefore unsupported .

Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the
scenario to
work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith
that they will never run into problems.

Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and compacts over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any
case (including the original scenario).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in

message news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
> Hi Michael
>
> "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
> > See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet

Locking": > >
>
> I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:
>
> I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
> 2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
> multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...
>
> Peter



Nov 13 '05 #15

P: n/a
I use compact to copy the front-end to the local computer. It is faster then
using copy on a large front-end.

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairinc.com> wrote...
I have had a large Access 97 back-end on a Novell server for years and
rarely had problems compacting over the network. ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.
The word rarely of course should bring up the caution flag. Have you ever
timed the difference between a network compact and a local one?
As for Samba and Linux, there was a long discussion last year in this

group,
that did not recommended this combination. Has this changed with Samba 3x?
Not sure. But it seems odd to be so anxious to push the evelope this way....

--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper, but I
am
almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and therefore unsupported .

Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the
scenario to
work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith
that they will never run into problems.

Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and compacts over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any
case (including the original scenario).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in

message news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
> Hi Michael
>
> "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
> > See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet

Locking": > >
>
> I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:
>
> I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
> 2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
> multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...
>
> Peter



Nov 13 '05 #16

P: n/a
Even faster is using a server that you can run the compact on, directly --
impossible on both Netware and Linux but better performance and reliability
for all.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairinc.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
Rarely is 2 or 3 times in 4 years the repair and compact failed. I never
confirmed if it was a network problem, I was able to restore from backup and compact the database. Yes it is faster to backup locally but then I would
have to move the database to my local disk, compact, then move back to the
Netware volume.

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
"paii, Ron" <pa**@packairinc.com> wrote...
I have had a large Access 97 back-end on a Novell server for years and
rarely had problems compacting over the network. ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.
The word rarely of course should bring up the caution flag. Have you ever
timed the difference between a network compact and a local one?
As for Samba and Linux, there was a long discussion last year in this

group,
that did not recommended this combination. Has this changed with Samba

3x?

Not sure. But it seems odd to be so anxious to push the evelope this

way....


--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
> As far as I know, Kevin does not mention Linux in the white paper,

but I am
> almost certian that the scenario is untested by the Jet team and

therefore
> unsupported .
>
> Others have claimed that a late enough Samba version allows the scenario to
> work. Now all one needs is (a) a good reason to bother and (b) faith

that
> they will never run into problems.
>
> Given the fact that the backend should be compacted regularly and

compacts
> over a network are never advised, this seems like a bad idea in any case > (including the original scenario).
>
>
> --
> MichKa [MS]
> NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
> Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with
> no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
> "Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in

message
> news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb
im
> > Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
> > > See the Kevin Collins article "Understanding Micosoft Jet

Locking": > > >
> >
> > I do not know so much as Kevin does, for shure-;) but:
> >
> > I do have an Installation running on Access 97 and Suse 8.1 (Samba
> > 2.2.7) and i do not have any locking problems in this
> > multiuser-environement (5 User). Whatever...it works in my case...
> >
> > Peter
>
>



Nov 13 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
Even faster is using a server that you can run the compact on,
directly --
As long as you have instaled Access on the Server (who does this?-;) and
you have access to that server-;)
impossible on both Netware and Linux but better performance and
reliability


Depends on the app. Once a month in my case. And no repairs of the DB
since 2 Years now...

Peter
Nov 13 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
Even faster is using a server that you can run the compact on, directly --
impossible on both Netware and Linux but better performance and reliability
for all.


But who installs Access on a server? Very few people.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 13 '05 #19

P: n/a
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote...
As long as you have instaled Access on the Server (who does this?-;) and
you have access to that server-;)


Um, huh? Jet is there automatically.... no one needs Access.
impossible on both Netware and Linux but better performance and
reliability


Depends on the app. Once a month in my case. And no repairs of the DB
since 2 Years now...


Again, better perf and better reliability (plus the ability to know that the
scenario is supported) plus no locking worries. All for not doing any of the
pseudo-recommendations for Linux or Novell in this thread.

SO... are these things possible? Of course. If you must do them, will your
app probably live? Yes.

But if you have a choice are they really the best possible options? No, they
are not. And it is amazing that anyone (especially an MVP) would truly
recommend they are the best option on the strength of knowing they are
possible at all.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 13 '05 #20

P: n/a
But who has Jet on Win2000 or Server 2003? Everyone.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:tb********************************@4ax.com...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
Even faster is using a server that you can run the compact on, directly --impossible on both Netware and Linux but better performance and reliabilityfor all.


But who installs Access on a server? Very few people.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

Nov 13 '05 #21

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
But who has Jet on Win2000 or Server 2003? Everyone.


Oh, I see. You mean have a VB, C++ or other program automatically run on the server
after midnight using the Jet compacting code.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 13 '05 #22

P: n/a
"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote...
Oh, I see. You mean have a VB, C++ or other program automatically run on the server after midnight using the Jet compacting code.


More or less, yes. :-)
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 13 '05 #23

P: n/a
ja******@oakland.edu (James Fortune) wrote:
I have been running samba 3.0.1 as a backend for Access 97 for about
five weeks. The only comments I have heard so far is that the system
is running a little faster than before.
What was it running before? I ask because I'd like to know what versions work well.
I use the line 'veto oplock
files = /*.mdb/*.MDB' in the smb.conf file.
Was this set on general principles or because you were having problems.
The system has about 40 simultaneous users.


Nice to hear.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 13 '05 #24

P: n/a
Michael

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
And how about the compact issue?


When i read you comments, i remember Steve Ballmer at the last Summit,
when he lifted his right hand up to the sky, the right hand down to the
ground. In one hand was Windows, in the other Linux...its compleatly not
important for me which OS he holds in which hand...especially in this
issue.

What about the compacting-issue?

It makes no difference where the database is. (Windows, Linux, Novell)

I would never compact a database on the server itself. You tell us jet
is alredy on the Server.But there is no programm installed on a
standard-server-system which allows you to compact a database directly
on the server. The only argument against Novell and Linux is that you
have a chance to install one there.

We are not talking about operating-systems here. Your argument is no
argument to stay away from installing a backend on a non-windows-system.

You're talking about locking-problems on a samba-share: have you ver
tried it? Novell has also no locking-problems, as long as you modify the
standard-parameters from novell (Record-locks, Filelocks)

I'm not an MVP for Windows-Server. I'm working with access in many
different environements, but i see no reason to to pull on a pair of
pink glasses on. If i had to, i would give back my MVP-title
immediately!

There are arguments for Windows-Server against other operating-systems
(and reverse) But that's not the thread here. And it's not Bradley's
question.

Can he install an Access-Backend on a Linux-Box without any problems?
Without any locking-problems? Yes, he can!

Can he compact a database on a linux-box directly, if he whriley wants
to? Yes, he can (Vine and an installed office on the linux-box)

Can he repair and compact a backend on a linux-box without having Vine?
Yes he can copy the backend to a workstation with an installed Office
and do the job there.

So let's stay realistic, not fanatic.

Peter
Nov 13 '05 #25

P: n/a
On Jun 10 2004, 05:26 pm, "Peter Steimann[MVP Access]"
<PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote in news:2i************@uni-berlin.de:
You tell us jet
is alredy on the Server.But there is no programm installed on a
standard-server-system which allows you to compact a database directly
on the server.


Just FWIW, VBScript should be quite sufficient.

--
remove a 9 to reply by email
Nov 13 '05 #26

P: n/a
"Peter Steimann[MVP Access]" <PS************@Timesoft.ch> wrote...
What about the compacting-issue?

It makes no difference where the database is. (Windows, Linux, Novell)
Actually, that is not true. It matters a lot. Novell's locking techniques
used to allow you to abend the server if you performed complex Jet
operations (including compact). And on any platform it takes longer to
perform the operation if you do not perform it on the local machine.
I would never compact a database on the server itself.
Well, that is your choice. There are countless throngs that see no problem
with doing this.
You tell us jet is alredy on the Server.But there is no programm installed on a standard-server-system which allows you to compact a database directly
on the server.
And the ones that MS provides, and the ones I provide. Lots of little
utilities that do important things.
The only argument against Novell and Linux is that you
have a chance to install one there.
Pretty huge argument for large databases. And the locking issue on Novell is
still an issue (they fixed the crash but the architecural issue is still
there).
We are not talking about operating-systems here. Your argument is no
argument to stay away from installing a backend on a non-windows-system.
Actually, it is entirely valid, and compact is only one of the issues.
You're talking about locking-problems on a samba-share: have you ver
tried it? Novell has also no locking-problems, as long as you modify the
standard-parameters from novell (Record-locks, Filelocks)
Um, so unless you raise the roof on the number of locks, things can fail.
But think about what that number means, and what you are tying up in the way
of resources on that Novell box. I do understand about this issue from
Novell experts enough to know that the standard "increase the locks" answer
is not always the healthy one for the server.
I'm not an MVP for Windows-Server. I'm working with access in many
different environements, but i see no reason to to pull on a pair of
pink glasses on. If i had to, i would give back my MVP-title
immediately!
I'm not doing a commercial for the flipping product. But I have a production
database that customers rely on, I will choose a platform that has gone
though the extensive tests that the Jet team does for performance, stress,
regressions, and overall stability. Not one that is untested and therefore
unsupported. Just plain common sense...
There are arguments for Windows-Server against other operating-systems
(and reverse) But that's not the thread here. And it's not Bradley's
question.
Good advice does need to color a good answer, though.
Can he install an Access-Backend on a Linux-Box without any problems?
Without any locking-problems? Yes, he can!
Maybe. Its not supported by MS. Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
their implementation that trashes your database?
Can he compact a database on a linux-box directly, if he whriley wants
to? Yes, he can (Vine and an installed office on the linux-box)
Actually, remote compacting is not great on any platform, and emulation is
not too much better (I would not trust it here).
Can he repair and compact a backend on a linux-box without having Vine?
Yes he can copy the backend to a workstation with an installed Office
and do the job there.
Yes, but that takes longer. Without a proven benefit, whats the purpose of
doing all this work?
So let's stay realistic, not fanatic.


Dude, I am being reaslistic, and trying to recommend supported platforms and
techniques that will minimize risk. The fanatics are the ones who are trying
to do stuff just because they can, even when there are good architectural or
support-based reasons to not do them.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 13 '05 #27

P: n/a
Hi Tony

"Tony Toews" <tt****@telusplanet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1l********************************@4ax.com...
ja******@oakland.edu (James Fortune) wrote:
I have been running samba 3.0.1 as a backend for Access 97 for about
five weeks. The only comments I have heard so far is that the system
is running a little faster than before.


What was it running before? I ask because I'd like to know what
versions work well.


I started with Samba 2.2.2 and had no locking-problems. The Client runs
2.2.7 for about 1 Year now. I did not test with the latest Version 3.0
I use the line 'veto oplock
files = /*.mdb/*.MDB' in the smb.conf file.


Would be intersting to know! I didn't had to modify the samba.cnf-file

Peter
Nov 13 '05 #28

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
their implementation that trashes your database?


Is Microsoft?

I don't think so!

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #29

P: n/a
Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is no charge
for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and that includes if
they end up doing hot fixes and such.

I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of that policy,
and have found the notion of what is supported to be a very comfortable
place upon which to sit.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
their implementation that trashes your database?


Is Microsoft?

I don't think so!

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #30

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is no charge
for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and that includes if
they end up doing hot fixes and such.


And a good example of this is the initial OpLocks problem. Once MS was able to
reproduce the problem, which took several weeks, they had a solution which was the
registry key seting.

Took them several months to get a KB article out though.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 13 '05 #31

P: n/a
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<1l********************************@4ax.com>. ..
ja******@oakland.edu (James Fortune) wrote:
I have been running samba 3.0.1 as a backend for Access 97 for about
five weeks. The only comments I have heard so far is that the system
is running a little faster than before.
What was it running before? I ask because I'd like to know what versions work well.


It was on the NT 4.0 SP 6a server before. The move to Linux was
transparent to the users. I didn't try it with any previous versions
of samba. The version of Linux is Suse Pro 8.1 (Pre-Novell).
I use the line 'veto oplock
files = /*.mdb/*.MDB' in the smb.conf file.
Was this set on general principles or because you were having problems.


This was based on a recommendation from an admin posting on one of the
NG's. It was not implemented due to any problems.
The system has about 40 simultaneous users.
Nice to hear.


I have the habit of compacting to another name and compacting back.
It is a habit developed from the tendency of Access95 to corrupt
databases just by compacting them. The db is compacted to a hard
drive on a different machine and also burned to CD. There still have
been no problems reported.

Tony


James A. Fortune
Nov 13 '05 #32

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
> Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
> their implementation that trashes your database?
Is Microsoft?

I don't think so!


Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.


Er, that's hardly "liability." That's just support.

MS will *not* admit to any liability, financial or otherwise, for
damage to or loss of data. Indeed, all of their EULAs spell this out
explicitly.
I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of
that policy, and have found the notion of what is supported to be
a very comfortable place upon which to sit.


Support <> liability.

Given that Samba costs nothing, it shouldn't be surprising that you
would have to pay a service provider for support.

I just don't see a difference here.

But I actually do agree with you that I would never recommend
storing Jet data on a Linux server. I just don't see the point.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #33

P: n/a
Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:bl********************************@4ax.com:
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote:
Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.


And a good example of this is the initial OpLocks problem. Once
MS was able to reproduce the problem, which took several weeks,
they had a solution which was the registry key seting.

Took them several months to get a KB article out though.


But they didn't pay the people whose data files were trashed for the
time it took to recover the data.

Michael's original comment was about liability, not support.

It's fine to change the subject, but downplaying the use of Samba
because there's no one liable for damaged data makes no sense, as
Microsoft itself explicitly denies any liability for damaged data in
all of its EULAs.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #34

P: n/a
ja******@oakland.edu (James Fortune) wrote:
>I have been running samba 3.0.1 as a backend for Access 97 for about
>five weeks. The only comments I have heard so far is that the system
>is running a little faster than before.
What was it running before? I ask because I'd like to know what versions work well.


It was on the NT 4.0 SP 6a server before. The move to Linux was
transparent to the users. I didn't try it with any previous versions
of samba. The version of Linux is Suse Pro 8.1 (Pre-Novell).
>I use the line 'veto oplock
>files = /*.mdb/*.MDB' in the smb.conf file.


Was this set on general principles or because you were having problems.


This was based on a recommendation from an admin posting on one of the
NG's. It was not implemented due to any problems.


Thanks for posting back.
I have the habit of compacting to another name and compacting back.
It is a habit developed from the tendency of Access95 to corrupt
databases just by compacting them. The db is compacted to a hard
drive on a different machine and also burned to CD. There still have
been no problems reported.


Totally agree with this concept.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Nov 13 '05 #35

P: n/a
OM
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
<snip>
Maybe. Its not supported by MS. Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
their implementation that trashes your database?

<snip>

Sorry for this big snips here, and taking just one line of your reply to
task - Is Microsoft liable if there is some bug in their implementation that
trashes your database ?

Rob Lepper

(Answer - I think not.....)
Nov 13 '05 #36

P: n/a
Sigh.

Hello trees, meet forest. But I am very proud how you all can have such
perfect posts that you feel superior enough to nitpick individual words....

Let me know when you all are ready to get back to Access?

MichKa

"OM" <le******@loxinfo.dot.co.th> wrote in message
news:ca**********@news.loxinfo.co.th...
"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40********@news.microsoft.com...
<snip>
Maybe. Its not supported by MS. Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
their implementation that trashes your database? <snip>

Sorry for this big snips here, and taking just one line of your reply to
task - Is Microsoft liable if there is some bug in their implementation

that trashes your database ?

Rob Lepper

(Answer - I think not.....)

Nov 13 '05 #37

P: n/a

Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean that
courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for many
reason.

It is only common sense that Microsoft has more liability regarding
its products running on supported systems than non-supported systems.
How can you even start to argue Microsoft's liability regarding the
Access failures to operate as stated is the same on a recommended
Windows system versus non-supported Samba system?

For example, if Microsoft knew that Access trashes your hard disk on a
supported Windows operating system, and they did not inform their
users of such, their EULA most likely would not save them from
potential legal liability. Such knowledge regarding Samba would not
put them at the same level of risk - because they do not claim that
Access runs on it.

Steven
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:57:03 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:

> Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
> their implementation that trashes your database?

Is Microsoft?

I don't think so!


Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.


Er, that's hardly "liability." That's just support.

MS will *not* admit to any liability, financial or otherwise, for
damage to or loss of data. Indeed, all of their EULAs spell this out
explicitly.
I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of
that policy, and have found the notion of what is supported to be
a very comfortable place upon which to sit.


Support <> liability.

Given that Samba costs nothing, it shouldn't be surprising that you
would have to pay a service provider for support.

I just don't see a difference here.

But I actually do agree with you that I would never recommend
storing Jet data on a Linux server. I just don't see the point.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc


Nov 13 '05 #38

P: n/a
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:57:19 GMT, st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote:

Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean that
courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for many
reason.


That's why Microsoft actually pushed laws through saying that their contracts
are valid. In fact, if the laws had gone on the books as originally composed,
commercial software providers would have no liability, but providers of free,
open source software would be legally unable to protect themselves from
liability. I think, in some states, they actualloy got it passed in that
form.

Nov 13 '05 #39

P: n/a
Its nice that someone has an understanding of the landscape....
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Steve" <st***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40***************@news.westnet.com...

Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean that
courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for many
reason.

It is only common sense that Microsoft has more liability regarding
its products running on supported systems than non-supported systems.
How can you even start to argue Microsoft's liability regarding the
Access failures to operate as stated is the same on a recommended
Windows system versus non-supported Samba system?

For example, if Microsoft knew that Access trashes your hard disk on a
supported Windows operating system, and they did not inform their
users of such, their EULA most likely would not save them from
potential legal liability. Such knowledge regarding Samba would not
put them at the same level of risk - because they do not claim that
Access runs on it.

Steven
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:57:03 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn*********************************@24.168.12 8.86...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:

> Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
> their implementation that trashes your database?

Is Microsoft?

I don't think so!

Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.


Er, that's hardly "liability." That's just support.

MS will *not* admit to any liability, financial or otherwise, for
damage to or loss of data. Indeed, all of their EULAs spell this out
explicitly.
I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of
that policy, and have found the notion of what is supported to be
a very comfortable place upon which to sit.


Support <> liability.

Given that Samba costs nothing, it shouldn't be surprising that you
would have to pay a service provider for support.

I just don't see a difference here.

But I actually do agree with you that I would never recommend
storing Jet data on a Linux server. I just don't see the point.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #40

P: n/a
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:40***************@news.westnet.com:
Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean
that courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for
many reason.
So, in other words, you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
them.
It is only common sense that Microsoft has more liability
regarding its products running on supported systems than
non-supported systems. How can you even start to argue Microsoft's
liability regarding the Access failures to operate as stated is
the same on a recommended Windows system versus non-supported
Samba system?
Zero legal liability is zero legal liability, regardless of whether
it's because the chief legal entity is unsueable or because there is
no legal entity to sue.
For example, if Microsoft knew that Access trashes your hard disk
on a supported Windows operating system, and they did not inform
their users of such, their EULA most likely would not save them
from potential legal liability. Such knowledge regarding Samba
would not put them at the same level of risk - because they do not
claim that Access runs on it.


I'm not *for* using Samba with Jet. Indeed, I'm mostly against and
would never recommend it for a client.

But the point is that in terms of liability, Microsoft is no more
provably liable for damage to your data than Samba.

I strongly doubt that you'd be able to beat a Microsoft legal team,
since there are far too many factors involved in any data loss
scenario. Likewise, MS has been saying for many years that they
don't recommend Jet for mission-critical data, so you would be using
it for that at your own risk. I can't see how you'd win a lawsuit
for anything but mission-critical data, so MS would always have the
out that their stated policy is to not use Jet for that kind of data
storage, so if you lost data, it was your own fault for mis-using
their tools.

I am not saying I agree with MS's interpretation.

I am only saying that the courts are much more likely to take MS's
side because the argument *sounds* reasonable, on the surface.

It's pretty clear that our justice system in this country cannot
deal well with computer issues (hence the complete gutting of the
anti-trust finding against MS that has left them able to whatever
the hell they choose, with impunity).

Why you would count on a lawsuit to hold MS liable in the case of
data loss, I can't fathom.

It's also a very, very weak argument.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #41

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40******@news.microsoft.com:
Hello trees, meet forest. But I am very proud how you all can have
such perfect posts that you feel superior enough to nitpick
individual words....

Let me know when you all are ready to get back to Access?


It is apparent from your first reply to my statement of the same
objection that you didn't mean "liability," but you meant "support."
You really meant that there is a designated responsible party who
can provide you with help in solving problems.

You ignore that fact that with Samba, there's also a whole group of
people (none of whom will charge you and to whom you've never paid
anything) and various service providers who will (for a price, but
you've also paid a price to Microsoft) provide you with support.

And, of course, with Samba, you always have the possibility of
digging into the code yourself and figuring out what went wrong and
fixing it yourself (or hiring someone to do it).

I'm not an open source zealot, no, but I think that the Microsoft
party line about the "risks" of depending on open source software is
all FUD.

All of it.

Every last bit of it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #42

P: n/a
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
I'm not an open source zealot, no, but I think that the Microsoft
party line about the "risks" of depending on open source software is
all FUD.

All of it.

Every last bit of it.


Thats an interesting opinion. I guess we'll just have to disagree, since the
risks of running any software on platfoms for which the extensive testing
suites of multiple computers takes DAYS to do a full regression run on are
obvious to lots of others (including me). And the prior sentence does indeed
describe Access on Win2000, XP, and Server 2003.

It is hardly FUD to express more confidence on software systems that provide
such an assurance for their products. It is just common sense.
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
Nov 13 '05 #43

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote...
I'm not an open source zealot, no, but I think that the Microsoft
party line about the "risks" of depending on open source software
is all FUD.

All of it.

Every last bit of it.
Thats an interesting opinion. I guess we'll just have to disagree,
since the risks of running any software on platfoms for which the
extensive testing suites of multiple computers takes DAYS to do a
full regression run on are obvious to lots of others (including
me). And the prior sentence does indeed describe Access on
Win2000, XP, and Server 2003.


But if you're fixing Samba to run on *your* hardware, there is no
need for all that testing. You only need a fix that runs on your
hardware.

Now, if you put the fix back into the development tree for Samba,
then, yes, it will need to be tested.

But to get a solution to a problem with Samba, all you need is a
programmer who knows his or her way around the Samba code base.

You have no such chance with a problem from Microsoft, unless MS
decides to patch it for everyone. And such a patch will, naturally,
be greatly delayed precisely because MS can't do it just for you --
they have to test it for everyone.
It is hardly FUD to express more confidence on software systems
that provide such an assurance for their products. It is just
common sense.


No, there's nothing sensible about MS's party line of open source at
all. Most of it is contrafactual, in fact.

If your problem is a bug that is causing data corruption, you're
going to get it fixed sooner with open source software than with
Microsoft, unless it's a bug that MS has already patched. But in
that case, there would be no liability on MS's part, because you
would be to blame for using the unpatched software.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #44

P: n/a
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:31:30 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:40***************@news.westnet.com:
Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean
that courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for
many reason.
So, in other words, you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
them.


No David, nothing in my posts implies that Microsoft is dishonest, nor
that I feel protected because I can sue Microsoft.

Microsoft wrote an EULA that best protects their interest - nothing
corrupt about that. But like in every business agreement, the courts
can overturn certain clauses. A classic case is the non-compete
clause in many employment contracts. If such clauses are unreasonable
under certain situations, the courts can invalid them, even if all
parties agreed to the terms.

Getting back to the discussion, clearly, if Microsoft knew that Access
was crashing hard disks running under a recommended Windows OS, and
Microsoft made no attempt to inform such users, an EULA would not
provide complete legal liability protection to Microsoft. However, if
Microsoft new that under Samba, Access could crash hard disks, I doubt
that they have legal responsibility to inform their users; and if the
did, clearly not the same level of responsibility running under
Windows.

You bring up how difficult it would be to defeat Microsoft in court -
given their vast resources. So true, but that does not nullify the
above.

My comfort in using Access under Windows rather than Samba does not
come from my ability to sue Microsoft and win. It comes from the fact
that Microsoft has more of a legal and corporate responsibility for
the proper operation of its applications under its recommended
operating systems; and they will reflect that in their research,
development, and of course, testing.

<snip>
Why you would count on a lawsuit to hold MS liable in the case of
data loss, I can't fathom.

It's also a very, very weak argument.


The only thing I can't fathom is why you have morphed this discussion
from legal responsibility to actually winning a lawsuit. Just
because you have legal responsibility to perform in a certain way,
does not mean that you will be successfully sued or convicted if you
violate such responsbility.

Steven
Nov 13 '05 #45

P: n/a
Whatever David, we'll just have to disagree.

MichKa
Nov 13 '05 #46

P: n/a
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
Whatever David, we'll just have to disagree.


Admitting that none of my statements are rebuttable?

Surely, you can do better than that.

If not, it really does suggest that the MS arguments, are, indeed,
nothing but FUD. If someone as knowledgable as yourself cannot
defend the case, it looks undefendable.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #47

P: n/a
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:40***************@news.westnet.com:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:31:30 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:
st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:40***************@news.westnet.com:
Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean
that courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned
for many reason.
So, in other words, you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
them.


No David, nothing in my posts implies that Microsoft is dishonest,
nor that I feel protected because I can sue Microsoft.


Then why make the argument that the EULA would not hold up in court?
Either MS is lying by propagating its EULA's or, well, I don't know
what. If the EULA is not legally enforcable, then MS is dishonest in
continuing to claim freedom from liability.
Microsoft wrote an EULA that best protects their interest -
nothing corrupt about that. But like in every business
agreement, the courts can overturn certain clauses. A classic
case is the non-compete clause in many employment contracts. If
such clauses are unreasonable under certain situations, the courts
can invalid them, even if all parties agreed to the terms.
But you're admitting that the EULA can't really be overturned until
you go to court, so, basically, what you're saying is:
. . . you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
them.


Which is, of course, what I said in the first place -- you appear to
agree 100%.
Getting back to the discussion, clearly, if Microsoft knew that
Access was crashing hard disks running under a recommended Windows
OS, and Microsoft made no attempt to inform such users, an EULA
would not provide complete legal liability protection to
Microsoft. . . .
So you say. Are you a lawyer? Well, MS employed larged teams of
users to write the EULAs they use, and those explicitly disclaim any
liability for loss of data. Did MS hire incompetent lawyers, or is
it perhaps that case that your understanding of law is perhaps not
quite as authoritative as you'd like us to think?
. . . However, if Microsoft new that under Samba, Access
could crash hard disks, I doubt that they have legal
responsibility to inform their users; and if the did, clearly not
the same level of responsibility running under Windows.
Nice red herring. No one was talking about Microsoft's putative
liability for data lost under Samba.

If you thought that was under discussion, then you're hopelessly
confused and should perhaps go back to the beginning and start over
re-reading the thread.
You bring up how difficult it would be to defeat Microsoft in
court - given their vast resources. So true, but that does not
nullify the above.
What "above?" You've demonstrated exactly nothing that contradicts
my original statement.
My comfort in using Access under Windows rather than Samba does
not come from my ability to sue Microsoft and win. It comes from
the fact that Microsoft has more of a legal and corporate
responsibility for the proper operation of its applications under
its recommended operating systems; and they will reflect that in
their research, development, and of course, testing.
They certainly have good economic reasons for supporting their own
products. That doesn't mean they will solve every problem
encountered by every end user.

With an open source product, there is at least the possibility of
having someone knowledgable review the source code to identify (and,
hopefully, fix) the bug causing the problem in the first place.

So, liability is not really needed, as you could spend the money
you'd save by not suing Microsoft on hiring a programmer to fix the
underlying bug for your own use.
<snip>
Why you would count on a lawsuit to hold MS liable in the case of
data loss, I can't fathom.

It's also a very, very weak argument.
The only thing I can't fathom is why you have morphed this
discussion from legal responsibility to actually winning a
lawsuit. . . .


Michael brought up liability, and when called on it, changed the
subject to support.

You're the one who brought up lawsuits by claiming that MS's EULA is
unenforceable.

All I said was that I read the EULA and it said MS will not admit
liability. That tells me that there's really not much difference on
the subject of liability between SAMBA, where there is really no one
to hold liable, and MS, where the owner of the product explicitly
declaims any liability for damage to your data.
. . . Just because you have legal responsibility to perform
in a certain way, does not mean that you will be successfully sued
or convicted if you violate such responsbility.


I think a company that explicitly tries to excuse itself from
liability for damage to your data is not going to be very happy to
be asked to be liable.

If you data is damaged because of bugs in someone else's software,
you're just out of luck. If it were not so, none of us would be able
to afford shrink-wrapped software. Indeed, there would probably be
no shrink-wrapped software at all.

And, just to re-iterate: I would never recommend storing Jet data on
a Samba server, for all the reasons that Michael has outlined.

But in regards to comparative liability of Microsoft and Samba,
there is no practical difference -- there is zero liability in both
cases.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Nov 13 '05 #48

P: n/a
No David, I am just sick of arguing with you.

I can defend any case I need to, and as someone who did consulting work with
Access since 2.0, I can tell you for fact that I NEVER believed thast
unsupported platforms are a productive line of development, and have in fact
walked away from lucrative contacts that insisted on unsupported platforms.
This is independent of my current employment because I do not consult any
more. You one respected me, you could at least show a shred of that respect
and not make accusations that have no basis in reality.

Clearly you are not interested in the Microsoft OS (Windows) or its Office
database app (Access) and believe that others can do better. I am not a
cheerleader of either and hav no interest in playing verbal ping pong with
someone who will consider me a FUD-spreading apologist when he knows that
this is really not true (or at least once did).
--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.74...
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:
Whatever David, we'll just have to disagree.


Admitting that none of my statements are rebuttable?

Surely, you can do better than that.

If not, it really does suggest that the MS arguments, are, indeed,
nothing but FUD. If someone as knowledgable as yourself cannot
defend the case, it looks undefendable.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Nov 13 '05 #49

P: n/a
DAVID,

Please end this thread. It is serving no useful purpose whatsoever.

Thank you,

MichKa
Nov 13 '05 #50

57 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.