BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SECURE JET, you should
try to use a database that supports security -- for everything that
you do.

Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.

-Aaron



On Mar 19, 7:30*am, "BruceM" <bam... (AT) yawhodotcalm (DOT) not> wrote:

I said to stop with the name calling. Your response, as is typical, is
irrelevant.

<aaron.kempf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SECURE JET, you should
try to use a database that supports security -- for everything that
you do.

Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.

-Aaron



On Mar 19, 7:30 am, "BruceM" <bam... (AT) yawhodotcalm (DOT) not> wrote:

He, he it's nice to see that I can pop out for a few months and some things
stay the same in here, Aaron the troll is still wearing his blinkers and
thinks that a hammer can do the job of a screwdriver.

Again: Correct tool for the job
Again: Correct tool for the job
Again: Correct tool for the job
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.


Terry Kreft


<aaron.kempf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SECURE JET, you should
try to use a database that supports security -- for everything that
you do.

Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
Again.. SQL Server development is _EASIER_ than Jet.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.

-Aaron



On Mar 19, 7:30 am, "BruceM" <bam... (AT) yawhodotcalm (DOT) not> wrote:

chickenfriedsteak <owner (AT) chickenfriedsteak (DOT) us> wrote:

We don't mind you posting questions. That's what we enjoy doing. Please continue to
ask questions.

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/

uh, you're the one with a hammer and you think that everything should
be done with an obsolete database
uh, you're the one with a hammer and you think that everything should
be done with an obsolete database
uh, you're the one with a hammer and you think that everything should
be done with an obsolete database




On Mar 20, 6:09*am, "Terry Kreft" <d... (AT) spam (DOT) me.co.uk> wrote:

Ha, ha, ha, oh you get better every time.

See if you can see the irony in there Aaron, no, ok I'll explain it to you.

Every answer you give is the same; 'insult Access/JET ... use SQL server ...
insult OP ...' hence you are using the same tool for every job, do you get
it now?

Again: Correct tool for the job
Again: Correct tool for the job
Again: Correct tool for the job
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.
That's what you don't understand.


Terry Kreft


<aaron.kempf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

uh, you're the one with a hammer and you think that everything should
be done with an obsolete database
uh, you're the one with a hammer and you think that everything should
be done with an obsolete database
uh, you're the one with a hammer and you think that everything should
be done with an obsolete database




On Mar 20, 6:09 am, "Terry Kreft" <d... (AT) spam (DOT) me.co.uk> wrote:

Aaron,
You seem really confused here; I have never said that SQL Server is never
the right solution, I certainly have never shouted that, you though have
said the opposite on a number of occasions, see your reply below for an
example of this.

Looking in my toolbox I have a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail punch, some
screws and some nails, oh and one of those tools everyone inherits from
their dad but isn't quite sure what it's for.

Now, personally, I don't want to get sodomized at all, although I'm aware
that some people do enjoy this and good luck to them if they can get it I
say, what I do want is to look at a problem, come up with the best solution
to that problem and then implement that solution.

You could only possibly prefer direct client server because the projects you
have been involved in were quite small, anybody with any real experience
would prefer some indirection in the structure so that changes in
implementation can easily take place.

Again you seem to have the wrong end of the stick here Aaron, I'm not trying
to boss you around, I just think it's quite amusing that you still don't
seem to have got the idea yet that one solution (SQL Server) is not the only
solution.


Terry Kreft


<aaron.kempf (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Terry;

you're the one that's saying that 'SQL SERVER IS NEVER THE RIGHT
SOLUTION BECAUSE JET IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT SOLUTION'.
You're the one with a hammer.. and everything looks like a nail
(because all you've got is a hammer).

JET IS _NEVER_ THE RIGHT SOLUTION BECAUSE IT"S NOT STABLE.

SQL Server is _EASIER_ it is _CHEAPER_ it is _FASTER_ and it is
_BETTER_.

Build it nice or build it twice.
It's your choice.. do you want to be sodomized by SQL Server directly,
or would you prefer to get sodomized by SharePoint and _THEN_ SQL
Server?

It's all about the number of layers...
I prefer direct client-server-- because it's more powerful, and it's
easier to troubleshoot.

When Jet gets basic PROFILER capabilities, is when you can try to boss
me around!

-Aaron



On Mar 23, 3:10 pm, "Terry Kreft" <d... (AT) spam (DOT) me.co.uk> wrote:

Terry Kreft wrote:

Damn, it's been a while since I've seen your name in a post. I guess
you are in the microsoft groups.

Hi Salad,
No, I've just left a job which seemed to take up just about all of my time
for the last couple of years so I've been very inactive in the NGs. I've
just popped in really to have a quick nose at what people are asking about
and couldn't resist the temptation to rehash this discussion with Aaron.


Terry Kreft


"Salad" <oil (AT) vinegar (DOT) com> wrote

Terry Kreft wrote:
Hi Terry,

It's nice to see a regular again. Even if this time it turns out to be
a short visit, remember your roots.