I've been banned from UtterAccess

FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).
FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).
FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).
FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).
FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).
FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).
FULL FLEDGED SHAREPOINT DOES COME WITH EVERY VERSION OF SERVER. (2003
and 2008).



you've never worked with a single organization where WSS is not big
enough to house _ALL_ of their data.





On Mar 24, 2:29*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
strive4peace wrote :

You know far more about the replication feature than I do, but
replication is not the only approach.

As replication has been removed from the ACCDB format, if you are
wanting to build a database that will carry you into the future,
it is wise to explore other avenues. *Future versions of Access
may not support MDBs.

What part of "MDB is a native format for A2007" is unclear here? Why
is it such a stumbling block? Did everyone abandon A2000 format when
A2002 came out? No, because A2000 was a native format for A2002.
Likewise with A2003.

And, drumroll please, likewise with A2007.

No difference.

None.

Except for the addition of a new file format with very little to
recommend it -- database passwords, even if nice and strong, are
useless, and I can't think of a situation where a
professionally-developed app should be using multi-value fields.
Otherwise, what is there in this new format that is so wonderful
that it should compel developers to switch to it.

SharePoint does not work like replication -- but no one said it
did!

Microsoft is pushing it as the technology to replace replication in
distributing Access data files, so from their point of view, it does
"work like replication," even though it naturally doesn't use the
same technologies.

That is why SharePoint is an ALTERNATE approach to allowing folks
to add to and update from the same tables. *The RI issue will be
resolved as SharePoint grows; and there are other exciting things
in store; new features that we have never had. *Whether you like
it or not, this is the direction that Microsoft has decided to
take.

Until full-fledged Sharepoint comes with every copy of Windows
Server, I won't recommend its use to any clients because I don't
want their apps to have outside dependencies that cost extra money.
Most of my clients are too small to even *have* a server.

Personally, I use a different approach than either replication or
SharePoint. *I currently synchronize databases with my own code
and additional tracking information ... and my method will
continue to work.

I've written code to synchronize databases in a master/slave
relationship, and it's VERY VERY HARD. It's also very inefficient.

The cases where I did it were either not networkable or it was
between two different databases, so replication was not an option.
Had it been an option, I would have used it in a heartbeat, rather
than writing all that code.

You seem too interested in putting others down

You seem interested in defending Microsoft at all costs, even when
you don't know what you're talking about (as with the comments about
the A2007 UI and replication).

and this is exactly what
got you banned. *For the record, it was not just ONE person who
felt this way, although Glenn failed to mention this; there was a
discussion and a consensus was done before this action was taken.
You have made it clear this was was indeed the right decision.

I agree. I never should have contributed anything to UA as it's a
forum based on principles I find repellant.

And whatever discussion took place behind the scense, all I got was
an order to apologize. Had I been asked to edit the post to make it
less harsh, I probably would have done so and none of this would
have happened.

So, it seems to me that the process is broken at UA, too much aimed
towards being combative with anyone who is slightly impolite, as
opposed to working with the "offender" to make things better. What
happened here seems to me "courtesy for you, carte blanche for us."

Your last message to me was fairly good, but then you had to throw
one sentence in that was below the belt and got me mad.

Here's a free clue: I'm not posting to stroke your ego or make you
feel good.

Why not just leave
stuff like that out? *Or word it in a way that is not offensive?

How am I supposed to guess what you are going to think is offensive?
And why should I give up my ability to post strongly-worded
responses just because you might take offense?

You
are so bright, David, there is just no need ...

You also plonk others with wisdom to share if they say something
that ruffles your feathers ...

No, if they say STUPID things I plonk them.

so you are eliminating valuable resources as
well. *It all seems so silly -- when everyone is nice, this is not
an issue.

There's plenty of "nice" in the world and not nearly enough
competence.

You're nice, but as to your spouting off about replication in A2007,
you're incompetent.

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

" wrote:

MDB IS NOT A NATIVE FORMAT OF ACCESS 2007.

MDB and ACCDB are both native formats of A2007.

ADP IS THE MOST POPULAR FORMAT IN ACCESS 2000, 2002 and 2003. AND
2007.

Absolute rubbish.

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
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

strive4peace wrote in
:

[quoting the Access Team Blog]
UtterAccess, the web 2.0 social learning platform for Access
developers

That just shows that the terms "web 2.0" and "social learning
platform" have no actual meaning. There is *noting* web 2.0 about
UA, nor is it part of the social networking movement as seen with
FaceBook and MySpace and others.

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

" wrote:

ACCESS REPLICATION WORKS FOR ME BECAUSE I USE ADP.
I also have database mirroring and database snapshots.

Do you?

Yet another answer that doesn't answer any questions.

ACCESSS REPLICATION WAS REMOVED FROM ACCESS 2007 (FORMAT) BECAUSE IT
IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH.

I'm curious. How do you know this?

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
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

David W. Fenton wrote:
For calling a stupid suggestion a stupid suggestion, one of the
moderators at UtterAccess has banned me because I refused to
apologize for the infraction of calling bad advice bad advice.

Be warned that on UtterAccess.com, anyone can post terrible advice
if they do it politely (according to what the moderators arbitrarily
consider "polite") and continue to post bad advice. If, on the other
hand, one strongly criticizes someone else's advice, you can be
banned, even if you're right about the bad advice.

I would suggest that this should makes anyone question the
reliability of anything posted on UtterAccess if it's not confirmed
elsewhere.


Disclaimer: I have never posted in UtterAccess and I only read postings
there when they come up from a link or from a Google search so I am
unaware of the cultural climate that exists there. The reason for my
lack of dealings with UtterAccess is simply that I am busy enough that
the problems that come up in CDMA and MPA are adequate to satisfy my
curiosity at this time.

Since neither side is going to change, perhaps you should concentrate on
the future. The UtterAccess forum can claim that they are not as
extreme as San Angeles from "Demolition Man" :-). However, in the
future, rude will be considered, well, rude. You can claim that the way
you were taught works, but I find that "Boy named Sue" argument weak.
The abuse you received as a child, metaphorically speaking, should not,
IMO, be repeated just because you think it will make people stronger, as
it did you. If you feel that people need to have a strong disincentive
to make the truth sink in, then there are subtler ways to insult bad
ideas. I have a strong enough desire to help people learn Access that I
am even willing, at times, to make myself look foolish in order to help
the idea sink in. I don't see you as someone who would let that happen
to himself, so your options are more limited. In pool, you can help a
player get better by ridiculing every mistake or by re-enforcing
fundamentals. Players seem to respond better to positive reinforcement.
Although in pool, visualizations like those in "The Waterboy" seem to
be more effective in helping one's game than those in "Happy Gilmore"
:-). I am also reminded of the philosophical underpinnings of the
former TV series "Babylon 5." The Shadows motivated mankind through
fear. I suppose the "Fear Factor" needs to be there somewhere, but I'd
rather not be the one who brings it.

I think you will be much more effective by abandoning such puerile
methods. But feel free to use whatever methods really bring you the
results you want. Because you've been rude to people, including jumping
all over me when I didn't understand something (getting Client-Server
confused with an Access backend on a server long ago comes to mind), I
tried not to cut you any slack. I apologize for that. That was the
wrong way to react. I'll be kinder to you in the future, even if you do
not change. I almost stopped posting after the first time you went off
on one of my mistakes, but I persevered, so maybe your theory is valid,
maybe not. I would like to think that some of my contributions in the
newsgroups have been helpful enough to some that they may ponder for
just a moment what your style almost cost them. I don't say this as a
way to advocate censorship, but to point out that our social conventions
are often there for logical reasons. I try to take into consideration
that your style is partially a product of your NYC environment, but I
still hope that you'll consider taking my advice.

James A. Fortune


Eastern and Western philosophies balance each other, just as the right
brain balances the left brain.

" wrote in

:

ACCESS REPLICATION WORKS FOR ME BECAUSE I USE ADP.

There is no such thing as "Access replication." Replication is a
feature of the data store, so it's either Jet replication or SQL
Server replication. Since you use ADPs, if you're doing any
replication, you're using SQL Server.

I also have database mirroring and database snapshots.

I'm so very happy for you.

Do you?

ACCESSS REPLICATION WAS REMOVED FROM ACCESS 2007 (FORMAT) BECAUSE
IT IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH.

There is no single A2007 format. There are several native formats,
ACCDB, and MDB in all three varieties (2000, 2002, 2003).

You are an ignorant moron. Please stop posting your false answers.

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

" wrote in

:

ACCESSS REPLICATION WAS REMOVED FROM ACCESS 2007 (FORMAT) BECAUSE
IT IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH.

Actually, they ommitted it from the ACCDB format (along with ULS)
because it's too hard for casual users. A2007 is unquestionably and
end-user-oriented release of Access, and for security and
replication, they made the decision that these were back-end issues,
and if you need those features, you use a different back end.

I disagree vehemently with that decision, but it was made for reason
that have nothing at all to do with reliability. Jet replication is
just as reliable as all other operations with a Jet back end.

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

David;

you're not qualified to determine who gives bad advice and who
doesn't.

You're a JET cry baby! You're stupid!






On Mar 22, 9:38*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
wrote
m:

It is very sad that you have reacted the way you have, The UA
rules state very clearly
"Participants shall not post any material that (1) is likely to
cause offence ..."

I did nothing to give offense. I pointed out bad advice, perhaps
using terms you wouldn't use, but, hey, let's discuss that. I'm all
for a spirited discussion.

There was no discussion in this case -- just a moderator's demand
that I apologize. When I refused, I was bounced.

That's fine.

UA users are welcome to their walled garden, protected from the real
world.

Many people join UA, as opposed to other groups, for this very
reason, - *not because thay want to be protected from the real
world but because they want to have an intelligent, courteous
discourse on a subject without being subjected to unnecessary and
destructive criticism.

I have contributed nothing but intelligent discourse to UA from the
very beginning to my last post.

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

MDB is _NOT_ a native format.

Sorry-- but i'll never accept that argument.

SQL Server / ADP is a native format.. because it runs natively.
Jet takes about 12 layers to do the same thing.

-Aaron


On Mar 23, 5:25*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
strive4peace wrote :

while the options for replication and user security are on the
Database Tools ribbon if you use an older version database, they
are not if the database is in Access 2007 format, ACCDB -- I
should have clarified that.

Well, of *course* they are not there with ACCDB because ACCDB does
not support replication. Your comment really doesn't make sense --
you say you can use it programattically, but if you're using ACCDB,
you can't use it programatically, either because ACCDB doesn't
support replication.

Perhaps you are thinking of having an ACCDB front end to a
replicated MDB back end, but that doesn't make any sense, either,
because the menus *never* worked on a back end from the front end.
Just because they would be there in an unreplicated front end
doesn't mean you can use them to synchronize the replicated back
end.

So, it seems to me you were just spouting off without knowing what
the hell you are talking about.

*But if you are using an MDB with replication, why use 2007?

MDB is a native format for Access 2007.

Let me say that again:

MDB is a native format in Access 2007.

You might choose to use it because you require ULS or Replication.

While SharePoint is in its infancy, Microsoft is building its
capabilities and it will become quite impressive

It has no future to truly replace the functionality of Jet
Replication unless they completely abandon and replace the current
Sharepoint schema (this is the source of the lack of RI). This is
just not going to happen -- they are already committed to it and
have already built too much on top of it.

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

No Tony-- y0u are absolute rubbish

Just because you attempted ONE upsizing and failed-- that doesn't mean
that it's not the right solution for everyone else.

It's called egocentrism..
but you're canadian so it's spelled
F_U_C_K_Y_O_U_R_M_I_S_I_N_F_O_R_M_A_T_I_O_N





On Mar 25, 11:56*am, "Tony Toews [MVP]"
wrote:
" wrote:
MDB IS NOT A NATIVE FORMAT OF ACCESS 2007.

MDB and ACCDB are both native formats of A2007.

ADP IS THE MOST POPULAR FORMAT IN ACCESS 2000, 2002 and 2003. *AND
2007.

Absolute rubbish.

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 athttp://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
* *Tony's Microsoft Access Blog -http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/