Hans-Christian Andersen
hans.andersen at phulse.com
Mon Mar 4 14:29:58 CST 2013
Hi Jim, Just to add to your comment about Ubuntu, there are some slight differences between desktop and server. The most obvious one is thar Ubuntu server does not install with a GUI by default and this is a good thing. In my opinion and that of many in the industry, a GUI is a waste of system resources, as Linux can be administrated perfectly fine via the command line (bash and ssh) and you have less software installed this less of a surface for security vulnerabilities. For those reasons and others, I'd say it is the superior choice for a server administrator, but that is sometimes a hard sell for someone more familiar with using Microsoft server operating systems, so you can still install a GUI if that is your preference. Another difference is that the kernel for Ubuntu server is a little different. It's been optimised and tweaked more for a server environment and better performance in that respect. Which is nice. The last notable difference is also the software packages available and the package repositories. They are not quite the same as the server version is geared more for stable software releases, while desktop is a bit more bleeding edge. Ubuntu also provides you with some services that you don't really get on the desktop version, such as Landscape, other cloud services and etc. I run an Ubuntu server (still on 11.04 though, need to upgrade one of these days), but my experience so far in the last 2 or so years has been great. I recommend it if you want a good server OS and the other proper Linux server distros like CentOS and Debian are a bit intimidating. - Hans On 2013-03-04, at 9:58 AM, "Jim Lawrence" <accessd at shaw.ca> wrote: > Hi Guys: > > To add to your comments there are other methods that you can experiment > with. > > I know what you are going to say but why not try a Linux distro? Linux is > definitely the rising star in the computer industry. > > First, all you will need is a computer or one that you are fine with dual > booting. 4GB of RAM and 100GB hard drive is more than adequate especially if > you are going to be hosting multiple instances of various versions of MS > Access. For full terminal features like shareware you will need an extra LAN > card so you will have two. > > My personal choice of Linux distro is Ubuntu 12.04 (there is a 13.x version > out there but too bleeding edge...) How to install it and how difficult is > it? It is like installing Windows but easier. http://www.ubuntu.com/download > > You what the desktop version though there are very little (no) differences > other than cosmetic between desktop and server. They are both fully > multi-user and use the same kernel. > > Second, once installed check to see if you have the latest version of Wine. > That is the Linux package that allows you to run Windows application. > The latest versions: > http://www.noobslab.com/2012/06/install-wine-156-in-ubuntu-1204.html > Can it run MS Access? Here are the versions that it can run and be > installed: > http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=12 > You will have to do a little tinkering: > http://askubuntu.com/questions/156296/how-to-install-microsoft-office-2010-i > n-ubuntu-12-04 (Once installed it will run significantly faster than on a > similarly equipped Windows computer.) > > Third, install a full terminal (thin client) capabilities. You will need to > add a number of users, how every many in the office or internet will be > using the MS Access and terminal a package. This is where the two LAN cards > become crucial and this is not for the faint of heart but it is no more > difficult than install a Windows server. There are a number of ways to > approach this but this decryption seems the simplest: > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuLTSP/ThinClientHowtoNAT/ and > http://www.thefanclub.co.za/how-to/how-create-ubuntu-1104-x64-ltsp-server-32 > bit-thin-clients > (This is as far as I got as my 30 GB Linux test machine ran out of hard > drive space (unrelated to this install) and I ran out of time but later in > the month this should all be up and running.) > > So why would you do this? Well then ask yourself how did the fellow at > www.eqldata.com do it all? I posted a link to an browser page written by the > developer and his explanation is similar (same). He has built a very nice > interface with all the bells and whistles as well but on the cheap and for > your own business you can just roll your own and run your Access > applications indefinitely. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:22 AM > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' > Subject: Re: [AccessD] New Approach > > Dan, > > There are more choices then that... > > 1. Use terminal services to run the apps. > > 2. Use a service like www.eqldata.com for remote users. > > And there's no reason you can't use linked tables and ODCB over the > internet. You do need to write things differently, but you can live with > ODBC. > > On Brad's question, while desktop databases are not going away anytime > soon, it does seem like Microsoft has no intention of improving them. > > I think you'll see some improvements, but I believe they will be minor in > nature. > > Microsoft has one focus at the moment, and that's the web. Anything they > can do in that area will have priority. One only needs to look at Access > 2013 to see this; everything was on the web side and nothing was done on the > desktop side. That's a trend I believe you will see continue. > > If your not un-happy with desktop databases as is in 2013, then your good. > But if your looking for improvements, I don't think you'll see them unless > they happen to be related to a web feature. > > Jim. > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:37 AM > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' > Subject: Re: [AccessD] New Approach > > Hi Brad, > > Access should be around for a long time, but because people want to open the > system on their laptops when they are away from the office, Access may not > be the best platform for an application that everyone uses. > > You have sort of 3 choices (by increasing complexity): > > 1) Convert your Access tables to SQL Server and rewrite the Access > application to connect to SQL server w/o using table links. IOW, write your > connection code within the app. External users will connect via VPN to your > network. > > 2) Convert your access tables to SQL Server and rewrite the application in > VB.Net or C#. This is a good choice but a significant learning curve. > External users will connect via VPN to your network. > > 3) Rewrite everything and create a web site. Users will connect directly to > that site. > > Hope this helps! > > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Brad Marks > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:36 AM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: Re: [AccessD] New Approach > > All, > > This is probably a really dumb question. > > If a small firm has existing desktop-based applications (including > applications built with Access) AND there is no need to have these > "internal" applications visible on the internet, is there a need to look at > software products such as Alpha-5? > > Won't Access be around for a long time for such internal applications? > > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com