[AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

DWUTKA at marlow.com DWUTKA at marlow.com
Tue Jan 25 15:27:17 CST 2005


Hey, it's still concurrent connections!  It's really JET that has the
capability/limit.  The Front End capabilities of Access should only ever
have 1 user at a time anyways.

Honestly, Access becomes a LOT more powerful when used properly as a
database, especially when put into web applications.

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholson, Karen [mailto:cyx5 at cdc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:05 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


So now the REAL truth comes out, trickling like an icicle melting in the
sun.  Smart a*!

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:13 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


Very true!

Admittedly, my application has a VB front end, so it only connects when
necessary.  We have about 120+ machines using it.....

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bartow [mailto:john at winhaven.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:58 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


Drew,
I support a number of Access programs that I haven't written and I can
assure yoou that many of these are lucky to get through ONE concurrent
user!

:o)

There is a lot of Access based junk out there and a lot of nimrods who
think
they know what they're doing with it.

John B. 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:16 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

Hey, I've had over 100 concurrent users, and didn't have a glitch!

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bartow [mailto:john at winhaven.net]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:23 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


No, M$ tested it with little bird poopey uses connected concurrently and
they could only get up to 127 users. They used flea poopey to get 255.
:o)

John B. 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Nicholson,
Karen
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:26 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

Yeah, but the guy paid over $10,000 for the system.  He wants that back.
What can you do when Microsoft claims that Access can handle 255
concurrent
database connections at one time?  We all know that is just bird-poopey.

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Brett
Barabash
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:13 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


Karen,
First of all, if the total loss is $3000, this is clearly a small claims
court issue.  A civil court won't hear a case under $5K, and it wouldn't
be
worth it for the client to pay a lawyer to recover such a small amount.
Of
course, explaining dumbing down the evidence for a small claims court is
no
small task.

Secondly, there is the legal concept of mitigation of loss.  The client
will
be burdened with the task of proving that they didn't know about the bug
six
months ago.  If it can be proven that they did know about it and said
nothing, the actual amount of damage will be greatly reduced.

And finally, if this can be proven to be a Microsoft technology issue
(security flaw, data corruption bug, etc.), and it is documented
(knowledgebase, 3rd party journals, etc.), it should be easy for the
developer to prove that they were not at fault.  I have gone down this
exact
road with a MS solution provider for way more than $3000.  After we
reviewed
the facts, it was clear to us that the problem was with the product, not
the
consultant.  So sue Bill instead (oh, and good luck with all that!).
 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Nicholson,
Karen
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:13 AM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

What happens when a program is written for a customer using Microsoft
Technology, and the Microsoft Technology is bad - its data, its logic.
It has cost this one client, he claims, $3000 in lost revenue and he
wants
the payment for the system refunded plus damages.  The user never
notified
said programmer that there was a problem even though they have been
using it
for a good six months.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
The information in this email may contain confidential information that
is
legally privileged. The inform

recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you
are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the
taking of
any action in regard to the content of this email is strictly
prohibited.
If transmission is incorrect, unclear, or incomplete, please notify the
sender immediately. The authorized recipient(s) of this information
is/are
prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and
is/are
required to destroy the information after its stated need has been
fulfilled.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be
the
views of Tappe Construction Co.

This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for
the
presence of computer viruses.Scanning of this message and addition of
this
footer is performed by SurfControl E-mail Filter software in conjunction
with virus detection software.

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com



More information about the AccessD mailing list