[AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

DWUTKA at marlow.com DWUTKA at marlow.com
Tue Jan 25 15:31:50 CST 2005


Actually, there are 256 bits in a byte.... <grin>, ya learn something new
everyday, I know. <grin>

It does come from that, in a way.  The very first bit is used to determine
if it's exclusively locked, then the rest of the bits in the byte are used
to determine if a user is 'active'.  It's in the header of the .mdb.

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Colby [mailto:jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:33 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


I am quite sure that the 255 number comes from storing bits in a byte or
something similar, iow there can "only be" 255 because a byte is used to
hold some critical piece, and there can "be as many as" 255 for the same
reason.  This does not discuss performance, only possibilities.

I can store 255 automobiles in my house... As long as I tear out all the
walls, crush the autos flat, and stuff the house full of crushed autos.  But
all I'm telling you is that I can store 255 autos in my house.  Absolutely
true but not terribly helpful.

It also says you can have a maximum of 4 billion records.  Of course the
container won't hold that many, but if it would, then the other structures
that organize the records are based on a long int so they can only hold 4
billion possible values.  

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com 

Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause:
http://folding.stanford.edu/

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Christopher
Hawkins
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:02 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


I'm sure MS Access CAN handle 255 concurrent connections.  But I'm equally
certain that those connections can't be a) all to the same table, b) pulling
back very much data, or c) held over a WAN.

The problem is that MS blithely throws out that 255 concurrent connections
figure without providing any context.  And now there's a legal battle
brewing.

Forgive me for losing track of the thread, but which of us is having this
legal problem?  I can't find the original message.

-Christopher-

----------------------------------------
 From: "John Bartow" <john at winhaven.net>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:33 PM
To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
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



More information about the AccessD mailing list