• dkf (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    To replace .NET, what you really need is Rubella.
    Curious, I was thinking of Elephantiasis.
  • (cs) in reply to Mickey
    Mickey:
    G-Unit:
    "Converting from VB to .NET is like putting lipstick and a wig on a pig. "

    Care to explain why? What framework would YOU choose?

    Mumps!

    No quack.

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to use the backups
    use the backups:
    This gives me a *good* idea. How about a "disavow" flag. Any attempt to select data marked as such will result in the message: "The database will neither confirm nor deny the existance of the data you are querying."

    "If you or any of your SQL team are killed or captured..."

    Chris Mattern

  • Zemyla (unregistered) in reply to Lederhosen
    Lederhosen:
    Converting from VB to .NET is like putting lipstick and a wig on a pig.
    Why? Because it's obviously someone's fetish?
  • (cs) in reply to WIldpeaks
    WIldpeaks:
    triso:
    Microsoft Access:
    You are about to delete 103 record(s).

    If you click Yes, you will not be able to undo this Delete operation. Are you sure you want to delete these record(s)?

    Yes! Uhmm, did I do something wrong?

    In such case, the best is to ut a dialog askig if you're sure you want to delete, mentioning that the operation cannot be undone and have three buttons (yes, no, file_not_found), written in japanese.

    So that'd be 'Hai', 'Iie', 'Fairu o mitsukemasen deshta'? (Any people who speak fluently, feel free to correct).

  • (cs) in reply to triso
    triso:
    Microsoft Access:
    You are about to delete 103 record(s).

    If you click Yes, you will not be able to undo this Delete operation. Are you sure you want to delete these record(s)?

    Yes! Uhmm, did I do something wrong?

    "Well, what were you trying to do?"

    "Er... I don't know."

    "What do you mean, you don't know? You're just pressing keys at random or what?"

    "Errr..."

    You see, that's the problem with certain users. In real life, they'd be called "mentally retarded" and be cared for at home, by specialized personnel. In front of a computer, they're "just another guy".

    Sheesh. Tech people have good reasons to be smug.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    overheard at the IT fast technology drive through.

    Yes, I'll have a MCfries, MCBurger, and MCdba to go. Nothing extra on the MCDBA please. We dont need any proactive thinking....

    Some DBAs are more aware of potential problems than others. Like the earlier post - if you give users the right to do something they WILL do it sooner or later. Perhaps they don't even have a DBA?? Using Access without setting common permissions tends to support that.

    Second that. I have seen that often enough: some home-educated user hacks together an Access-DB-based system which is terribly implemented but contains a lot of domain expertise and initially fulfills the expectations of the application domain users just fine. Later is degrades with time to good enough and it is being integrated into the enterpirse IT application landscape. That is often the stage when IT becomes aware of it (hopefully, and starts making backups - again hopefully). IT then takes over the support and further development of the application of tne without touching since IT intends to reimplement it (and other kludges like it) sooner or later so insginificant things like permissions tend to fall (unnoticed or ignored)by the wayside.

  • Tom (unregistered) in reply to Rick

    There is nothing wrong with having user access a database directly through MSAccess; it is a great tool for adhoc queries and reports (although at times not very fast), especially since you get all these form functionality to smooth things.

    However, the ODBC source through which MSA accesses the database OF COURSE uses a hard configured user named "readonly" (not the windows authentication).

  • LondonLad (unregistered)

    The WTF is that they allow direct access to tables. This should never be allowed, and only stored procedures should access data EVER!

    What a load of shite!

  • (cs)

    This must be the cutting edge of technology.

  • (cs) in reply to triso
    triso:
    Microsoft Access:
    You are about to delete 103 record(s).

    If you click Yes, you will not be able to undo this Delete operation. Are you sure you want to delete these record(s)?

    Yes! Uhmm, did I do something wrong?

    Definitely Yes! (5 minutes passes)...oh wait, I mean no!

  • MadMike (unregistered) in reply to Jethris
    Jethris:
    [...] Everyone wants to bash Access because it makes them seem superior. It's like bashing Sony because of the PS3 when they own a XBOX.

    You see, Access is a tool. It is very good at the things it is supposed to do, and very bad at the things it wasn't designed for, much like SQL Server. [...]

    I can only second that. But I guess it is much more than a PS3 vs. XBox360, Adidas vs. Nike or Pepsi vs. Cola problem.

    My take is, that people who don't really know enough about computer engineering grow up with VB and Access and then think they've got everything they will ever need to tackle computing problems. So it becomes the hammer which makes every problem look like a nail.

    There should be clippy jumping out at you, when you try to solve a problem with Access and/or VB where it isn't appropriate.

  • Aaron (unregistered) in reply to LondonLad
    LondonLad:
    ...and only stored procedures should access data _EVER_!
    Sigh.

    Don't forget to close your eyes and tap the server three times with a magic marker after each time you say that.

  • (cs) in reply to freakshow
    freakshow:
    G-Unit:
    "Converting from VB to .NET is like putting lipstick and a wig on a pig. "

    Care to explain why? What framework would YOU choose?

    Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. I doubt the guy has used VB.NET.

    I also have to defend Access here. Sure, it's no industrial-strength RDMBS, but I've heard lots of misinformation about it. Someone I worked with worried it wouldn't handle over 10 MB of data. He obviously never used it heavily enough to make the claim.

    Access isn't great, but it's still better than most people claim. It just seems fashionable to jump on the Access-bashing bandwagon.

    ... I think I should introduce you to our attempt on calculating costs on a year's worth of phone calls for a certain organization.

    Access barfed after hitting 300k records.

    We had 3 MILLION records/year, for 3 years.

    And some employee clock system used access too as its "backend". We had to purge the DB when the count reached somewhere around 80,000.

    I do not use Access unless it is really really my only option.

  • (cs) in reply to danixdefcon5
    danixdefcon5:
    freakshow:
    G-Unit:
    "Converting from VB to .NET is like putting lipstick and a wig on a pig. "

    Care to explain why? What framework would YOU choose?

    Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. I doubt the guy has used VB.NET.

    I also have to defend Access here. Sure, it's no industrial-strength RDMBS, but I've heard lots of misinformation about it. Someone I worked with worried it wouldn't handle over 10 MB of data. He obviously never used it heavily enough to make the claim.

    Access isn't great, but it's still better than most people claim. It just seems fashionable to jump on the Access-bashing bandwagon.

    ... I think I should introduce you to our attempt on calculating costs on a year's worth of phone calls for a certain organization.

    Access barfed after hitting 300k records.

    We had 3 MILLION records/year, for 3 years.

    And some employee clock system used access too as its "backend". We had to purge the DB when the count reached somewhere around 80,000.

    I do not use Access unless it is really really my only option.

    Your experience in this case doesn't necessarily mean that Access isn't good for some applications

    Why were you even using it for a database with 3 million records in the first place. That is the real WTF - no wonder it barfed.

    Access is ok for your Recipes or DVD collection database or other personal little things you might like to do. But don't send in Access to do a man's job, mmkay?

  • Zonkers (unregistered) in reply to kevin
    kevin:
    I put forth that if people know how to use tools, let them do their jobs. If they are doing something they do not understand then the burden falls on education and policy.

    I completely agree with this statement. I work in a place with opposite policy as yours (which is probably normal for most places). Our the users are not trusted to do anything on their own and if we find out they are using the system in a way "we think is dangerous" we as a team try to lock down the system even more so they can't do that anymore, usually to the detriment of that team doing that in my view.

    Devs usually like to assume that the users are dumb. I never got this really. If you don't think something is a good idea just tell them, you don't have to automatically develop a feature fence around every little thing. You've probably got enough features to develop already. I think the more fences like this in your app the less flexible, intuitive, and useful it is to the users and the more useful it is to the devs (or someone's boss), which is just plain wrong in my opinion. We are not kings on the throne, and more than half the time we don't even care to understand why a user would need to use a dangerous feature.

    So yeah, we are constantly doing the user's job for them by somehow bypassing the controls we set in the system so they can do their jobs. What sucks is to do this we usually develop new features that basically put holes in the fences here and there just for the devs use (because we're SMRT).

  • Graham (unregistered)

    I find it amazing that so many developers are so disconnected from their users requirements. There are so many demeaning comments about users here, but guess what folks: those of you who develop commercial software are being paid by users and would do well to remember that. It is rarely users stupidity which breaks an application but often that you did not think of / cater for the way in which the user works which led to the application breaking. Developers generally do not take kindly to users pointing out that the application they developed has bugs: personally I think this is a pride thing.

    Next time you are tempted to think your users are stupid ask yourself this: how much do you know about what they do? If they are accountants, how much do you know about accounting? If they are lawyers, how much do you know about law?

    Access has it's place and if you use it for something that it was not designed to do then that is not a problem with Access, it is a problem with your decision.

    Access is the most widely used RDBMS in the world, purely because it is so widely used in offices for small systems used by a small number of users. It is also functionally rich in that it provides a simple front end and reporting engine, as well as a quick and easy way to link to larger RDBMS's at the backend.

    All this being said, I am not a fan of Access, I just appreciate that it has it's place and fits it's place well.

  • lloigor (unregistered) in reply to freakshow
    freakshow:
    I also have to defend Access here. Sure, it's no industrial-strength RDMBS, but I've heard lots of misinformation about it. Someone I worked with worried it wouldn't handle over 10 MB of data. He obviously never used it heavily enough to make the claim.

    Access isn't great, but it's still better than most people claim. It just seems fashionable to jump on the Access-bashing bandwagon.

    I couldn't agree more and, whilst it’s not a development tool I'd choose, over the years I've been involved in developing many successful Access based systems.

    Unfortunately, as it’s mainly used by novice developers or end-users, it's rarely used in a professional manner and the poor systems that result have tarnished its image.

  • Thomas (unregistered) in reply to Duston

    This approach only works when the data model is simple. When the data model is very sophisticated, the approach of giving someone a reporting tool and letting them have at it does not work. It is simply way beyond most users capabilities and patience to understand SQL syntax, the reporting tool in question and the data model against which the reports will be run. If a given department has a local guru that is smart enough to pick up all of these aspects and make reports, then let him have at it (against a copy of course).

  • Thomas (unregistered) in reply to lloigor

    Access is a narcotic. If used in the proper doses it can work fine. If you have a company that has no expansion aspirations and wants something that requires almost no maintenance and few if any changes, then Access can provide a simple solution. However, like all good narcotics, no one ever seems to take the drug in its prescribed doses. Invariably, people keep adding a feature here, another there until one day you end up with Codethulu, a massive addiction and much like coke whores, the contemplation of mortgaging your house to pay a developer to rebuild the thing from the ground up because the current mass is a waste. You discover only later that Access databases can corrupt themselves; that the primary development paradigm of constant connectivity is inherently flawed in terms of providing scaling; that there are no real OO support in Access; that third-party add-ins almost always lead to corruption and deployment problems; and on top of all of that the program’s simplicity leads you to believe you really know how to develop databases. Only when you get to reporting do you realize how wrong you were.

    Yes, Access can be fine for simple projects and Jet can be useful in many circumstances but like all narcotics there is no clear demarcation for most people as to when they should put the drug down and go get real help.

  • Maty (unregistered)

    System which allow user to delete what should'nt be deleted is stupid system, this is not user problem...ninjas

  • bpb (unregistered) in reply to LondonLad
    LondonLad:
    The WTF is that they allow direct access to tables. This should never be allowed, and only stored procedures should access data _EVER_!

    What a load of shite!

    Really..stored procedures only. Forgive me, I am new on the landscape of programming and databases, I know there are performance issues with direct connection to the table (if thats the correct term)...but I had never heard of this absolute "and only stored procedures should access data EVER". Could someone explain please.

Leave a comment on “Cut, Paste, Destroy”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article