Is anyone here using UBUNTU? --- Linnux based op system
in [Design]
|
Prev: Novel? Guitar amp input stage, single 12AX7, footswitchableusing "folded" feedback loop.
Next: Novel? Guitar amp input stage, single 12AX7, footswitchableusing "folded" feedback loop.
From: John Devereux on 26 Jan 2010 15:40 Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Tim Watts wrote: >> But, you're right - there is absolutely nothing that comes anywhere near >> Access that I know off - and I tried a few commercial programs on a >> trial basis too. > > I've never got my head around Access. I don't know how to make it get > things out of a database that I need. I prefer good ol' plain SQL. You use access queries which are - pretty much - SQL. You can even switch them to "SQL view" during their design if you prefer. -- John Devereux
From: Baron on 26 Jan 2010 17:42 Tim Watts Inscribed thus: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:43:54 +0000, Baron > <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wibbled: > >> Ubuntu makes easy things hard. Try others before making a firm >> choice. >> Open SuSE <www.opensuse.org/en> > > What's hard about Ubuntu? I find the Debian config system very > thorough... > Debian is fine ! I guess I'm biased, don't like *buntu... or Mint for that matter. -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 26 Jan 2010 20:05 On 26 Jan 2010 18:46:42 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Tim Watts wrote: >> But, you're right - there is absolutely nothing that comes anywhere near >> Access that I know off - and I tried a few commercial programs on a >> trial basis too. > >I've never got my head around Access. I don't know how to make it get >things out of a database that I need. I prefer good ol' plain SQL. > >robert It is ALL SQL underneath. At least for MS products. That how the servers get queried. Access is like a mix between VB and foxpro and the old dbase, except everything is pushbutton "visual" now, and lots of modules are pre-composed/compiled<sic>. They did go SQL infrastructure though. I have been messing with it for a couple years now, and still find plain old Excel spreadsheets to be faster with my 48MB DVD database as a baseline. Access takes forever to do ANYTHING and there are only 176k records and it is mostly one table! There is an actors table and a director's table for the one to many and space reduction on repeated director name, which could be done on studios, etc, making the whole thing a bit smaller, but it is mostly one table, and mostly all unique data per record (barcode scans, etc). I still have trouble simply getting it to put up the director, and the actor list for the currently viewed entry. I never had trouble in Paradox linking fields, doing joins, and such. I am sure it would be easy once I become familiar with their twisted pair of dimes. :-)
From: JosephKK on 29 Jan 2010 23:00 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:47:53 +0000, Baron <baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote: >Tim Watts Inscribed thus: > >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:58:06 +0000, John Devereux >> <john(a)devereux.me.uk> wrote: >> >>> The main deficiency I found was the database front-end which seems >>> very limited compared to Access. For most users everything else is >>> equivalent or superior to MS Office. You can of course run almost any >>> program in VirtualBox as pointed out elsewhere, it really works very >>> well - it seems faster than native in most cases due to lack of virus >>> scanner I expect. >> >> Agreed. (Worth reiterating that's a lack of open source in general >> problem rather than specifically an Ubuntu issue). >> >> Rekall was showing a little fledgling promise for a while but it died. >> knoda is OK for quick and dirty table data entry and IIRC can manage >> basic forms. >> >> But, you're right - there is absolutely nothing that comes anywhere >> near >> Access that I know off - and I tried a few commercial programs on a >> trial basis too. >> >> Access is the one truly decent bit of software I think MS came out >> with. Probably because it is an incredibly hard bit of software to >> write well - not something I think would be easy for a couple of bods >> to knock up in the evenings. It's very GUI heavy on the user >> interaction side. > >Access was derived from Ashton Tate's DB3 and FoxPro. > >> Writing something that didn't have much gui support for design (say >> required doing the design in a declaritive language of some sort) but >> churned out nice guis for the users (and even better, could generate >> and run those same guis in a scripted web environment) would be an >> easier starting point. Once you have that, it becomes easier to then >> attack the design-as-a-gui end. >> >> If you don't have decent event scripting on every widget, and proper >> subform support it's a non starter... >> >> No way. Accessucks came out before M$ bought Ashton-Tate's dregs or FoxBase.
From: JosephKK on 29 Jan 2010 23:03
On 26 Jan 2010 18:46:42 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Tim Watts wrote: >> But, you're right - there is absolutely nothing that comes anywhere near >> Access that I know off - and I tried a few commercial programs on a >> trial basis too. > >I've never got my head around Access. I don't know how to make it get >things out of a database that I need. I prefer good ol' plain SQL. > >robert Yep. ObjectBases and Object Databases have come and gone, and good old SQL is still here. |