--- Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2005, at 17:16, Jeff Smith wrote: > > > it might be too easy - everyone does it, > > then expects it to be robust > > Aye, there's the rub - one might not expect it to be > scalable, but it > should at least be robust. Sadly, I've spent many an > hour rescuing > people from corrupted Access databases. The odd part is > they're not > terribly outraged that it happened in the first place - > almost > accepting. I realize which corner of the country Access > comes from, > but if postgres borked my database I'm be a few notches > higher than > miffed, as would the postgres dev team (after they blame > my hardware, > of course).
I should have used scalable instead of robust. Ideally,the Access design tools would have been designed separately from the db engine. You plug in the db of your choice on the back end. Alas, I'm told you can do that, but I haven't met anyone who a) has done it, or b) can show / explain how to do it. > > I don't expect ooofice's XML database to be a speed > demon, but I > certain do expect that it won't destroy itself. Oops, > preaching to the > pastor again. Suspect it won't, or if it does, the FLOSS community will fix it. Of course, as I said above, I hope the tools allow plugging in postgresql (my choice of db) in place of hsdb (or whatever the name is for that java db they use). jeff _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
