Nicholson, Karen
cyx5 at cdc.gov
Wed Jan 26 11:12:43 CST 2005
No, just the egos. -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Peterson, Steve Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:58 AM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy I figured it was a Texas thing. Even the bytes are bigger there, no? Steve -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:36 AM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy I really need some coffee. There are 8 bits in a byte. What was I thinking? And why did no one correct me on that? Guess it must be sympathy for me losing my mind...... Drew -----Original Message----- From: John W. Colby [mailto:jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:27 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy Yea, yea. You know what I mean. 256 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 DWUTKA at marlow.com Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:32 PM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy 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 -- 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