Is this true about Macs?

[drhouseman]

drhouseman: Creating an account on this forum just to blame an old-time member seems like perfect trolling. Take this as a first warning. There won't be a second.

Thank you - I will disbar myself. I have no wish to remain in a site where SATCOMER (long time poster or not) can abuse people and not be asked to behave more professionally. In fact, why did you as moderator not pick up on it. SATCOMER's rant as a reply says it all, doesn't it!.

Thank you.
drhouseman

[fryke]

He didn't pick on anyone. He picked on sysadmins who claim to be sysadmins but have limited (or no) knowledge of systems outside their own. I'm usually against metaphors, but if your knowledge about catholicism is vast, yet you don't know anything about other religions or about religion in general, you shouldn't call yourself knowledgeable in "religion", but "catholicism". I'd say I agree that a sysadmin with knowledge only about Windows (or Mac OS X or SuSE Linux, pick one) should be called a "Windows administrator" (or Mac OS X administrator etc.). If you take a look at my badges in my signature (I've added those half-jokingly, btw., although I _do_ have them), I don't call myself a system administrator. I know a _lot_ about Macs. I've used (and administered) Windows and linux machines in the past, but I don't consider myself proficient in those systems. So I wouldn't call myself, this generally, a system administrator, although that was my job title in the past.

But again: Why didn't I pick up on Satcomer's post? I didn't consider it a rant. But even if: Rants are okay. The question is how much, what tone, how wrong. Satcomer's post, in my not so humble, personal opinion, was perfectly okay.

[g/re/p]

CactusData: thank you for clarifying your points, and for sharing your knowledge on the subject.

drhouseman: you will not be missed!

(and btw - your namesake, the prestigious dr house, can back his bad attitude up in spades.
You, however, have failed in that area. I suggest some remedial work)

[ksv]

CactusData, you still haven't justified using Access, but I realize maintaining faulty databases makes for a good living—the problems just appear by themselves and can be explained with erroneous theories for a hefty hourly price tag ^^

[CactusData]

Oh, a new anonymous troll has arrived.

[ksv]

He he.

But really, if you think any of the points mentioned in your article causes database corruption, you should either be recommending your clients to immediately switch to another RDBMS to avoid data loss, and/or base your conclusions on empirical research rather than presumptions.

[CactusData]

Leo, why didn't you behave and put these relevant comments in your first post?

The answer is empirical research since version 1.0.

You seem to have the faulty assumption that Access/JET databases turns corrupt all the time. I guess you have read the word "prevent" in the title of the article as if the 10 advices given are not followed, any Access/JET database will corrupt. The title is not mine.
However, that is not the case, on the contrary. They don't:
<quote>
.. Access/JET does run mission critical applications around the world wether you like it or not - and at just about zero cost. We have clients here running different applications with Access/JET as the backend database experiencing 0 (zero) failures for more than 10 years. This is a fact.
</quote>

But - as with any other technology/software - issues may be experienced, and to keep these at zero or at least at a minimum some guidelines exist of which the 10 mentioned are some.

Have in mind too, that Access (the application) is used by many normal or super users which don't have much experience as db admins. It is easy for pros like me and (I guess) you to point fingers playing the clever guy. You gain much more by helping and guiding.

As for choosing another RDBM, you are right, indeed when so many high-quality server based engines are available for free like FireBird, PostgeSQL, MySQL, MaxDB, and (with their limitations) the "express" versions of DB2, Oracle, and SQL Server, even though these often require skilled maintenance:
<quote>
.. we may very well advice clients to use some other database for their specific task if we can see Access/JET won't fit the bill.
</quote>

In many cases, though, Access/JET as an backend database will fulfill the task, indeed for single user applications. Even though, MS pushes the use of SQL Server 3.5 Compact Edition which is a file based database very much like JET but for one concurrent user only. It has only one thing in common with its likely named server based big brothers, the SQL language, or rather a subset of the language. This means that you can design an application with the CE as the backend, and if or when you feel the need, the data can easily be moved to a server based engine, and the application can use this with minimal tweaking. Not a bad combo.

So - for databases as for so much else - one tool doesn't fit all purposes.

/gustav

[fryke]

And again, I repeat: If the database can be corrupted by a couple of Macs sharing files with each other via SMB or AFP, then there's something wrong with the network or the database, not the Macs. And that's the only interesting point about that article from a Mac user forum point of view, which this is.

To answer the thread's OP (or rather the question in the thread title) once and for all:

No, it isn't.