Linux

[B.r.a.d.l.e.y]

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

[David W. Fenton]

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:

[]

It seems clear that perhaps you once were able to speak reliably and
were not afraid to say when MS was making mistakes and speaking
untruthfully, but, sadly, that seems to no longer be the case.

Your effort to put words in my mouth shows that you're not really
interested in an honest discussion at this point, so I won't bother
to address the outrageous assertions in what you posted. It's this
inability to even comprehend what others are saying that is highly
characteristic of Microsoft's entire problem with the topic of Open
Source software -- they just shut their ears and ignore that real
people who've had real success with it, and better success than
they've had with Microsoft's software.

You sure are a team player.

So be it.

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

[David W. Fenton]

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40******@news.microsoft.com:

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

???

I wasn't addressing you, so why should you care?

Shouldn't the determination of usefulness be up to the other people
participating in the discussion? If Steve wants to reply, he can,
and has every right to do so. If he's not interested, then the
thread will end.

But I don't see what is accomplished by your announcing that you
find no value to the discussion.

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

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

I never thought I would have to add you of all people to my killfile David,
but as you said, so be it.

MichKa

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:23:01 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:

I never thought I would have to add you of all people to my killfile David,
but as you said, so be it.

MichKa

Oh, give me a break.

You've earned my great respect over the years, and you haven't lost it, but I
really think David's the one being pragmatic here, and you're trying not to
look past your nose. I also think if you were to killfile David, some great
meaningful dialogs in the future will be sadly lost to CDMA.

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote...

Oh, give me a break.
Okay.
You've earned my great respect over the years, and you haven't lost it, but I really think David's the one being pragmatic here, and you're trying not to look past your nose. I also think if you were to killfile David, some great meaningful dialogs in the future will be sadly lost to CDMA.

Pragmatic does not cover the accusation he made (baiting would be more like
it?). And meaningful dialogs cannot come out of situations where one person
thinks that poorly of another.

If you do not want to respect that, then you are obviously not required to
(nor is he). But its the same essential reason I killfile Mellon identities
whenever they reveal themselves -- if I do not sense mutual respect then
there is no point with the interaction. Which is not to say that Mellon and
David have anything in common, I am pretty sure they don't other than the
lack of mutual respect thing....

MichKa

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:20:49 -0700, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]"
<mi*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote:

Hmmm.... interesting. Now all one needs is a scenario where it makes sense
to use it? :-)

Actually, I have one client. They have about 6 concurrent users on an Access
back-end, and to avoid the cost and hassle of buying and updating a server
edition OS, they host an Access back-end on a Desktop Edition box. All they
use this system for is file sharing, and they share a lot of files besides the
Access back-end.

Unfortunately, they also have multiple shares on the machine (for good
reason), and the way Windows counts concurrent open shares is such that if one
client accesses both shares, thats 2 of the maximum available 10. The company
has been about the same size for decades, so there's no preducted growth to
justify the server OS beyond the current intermittent sharing isssues.

If they were to use Samba on the back-end, they would not even have to license
the Desktop Edition of Windows for that server, and they would not have the 10
client/share limit to contend with. Now, is that the right answer for them?
it's at least worth trying it out to see if it will work, I would think.

[David W. Fenton]

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40********@news.microsoft.com:

"Steve Jorgensen" <no****@nospam.nospam> wrote...

You've earned my great respect over the years, and you haven't
lost it,

but I

really think David's the one being pragmatic here, and you're
trying not

to

look past your nose. I also think if you were to killfile David,
some

great

meaningful dialogs in the future will be sadly lost to CDMA.

Pragmatic does not cover the accusation he made (baiting would be
more like it?). And meaningful dialogs cannot come out of
situations where one person thinks that poorly of another.

It's precisely because I *don't* think poorly of you that I hold you
to a higher standard of honesty than I believe you have demonstrated
in the discussion of liability, most of which you have actually
avoided after I pointed out the lack of a real distinction.

You also seem to have ignored the fact that on the salient point,
whether you should store Jet data on a Samba server, we actually are
fully in agreement.

I was just nitpicking one of your arguments against Samba.

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

[Steve]

Second the motion,

Steven

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:07:47 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <mi*****@online.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40******@news.microsoft.com:

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

???

I wasn't addressing you, so why should you care?

Shouldn't the determination of usefulness be up to the other people
participating in the discussion? If Steve wants to reply, he can,
and has every right to do so. If he's not interested, then the
thread will end.

But I don't see what is accomplished by your announcing that you
find no value to the discussion.

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