B
bcap
Ignore Kempf, he is an idiot, a liar and a convicted criminal.
B
bcap
Aaron is dead from the neck up. He has been since birth.
message
news:472a2ca3-5dcf-4930-9106-ead17992cbe0@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
message
news:472a2ca3-5dcf-4930-9106-ead17992cbe0@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
B
bcap
Aaron's logic:
Because the accdb file format does not support replication, then replication
has been removed from A2007.
So, also by Aaron's logic:
Because the accdb file format does not support adp functionality, adp has
been removed from A2007.
But it's pointless to expect Aaron to understand reductio ad absurdum, he's
just too stupid.
B
BruceM
Once again:
Access 2007 is compatible with previous versions of Access, and can be used
to create databases using the mdb file format. Such mdb databases can use
the features, including User Level security, found in databases created with
Access 2003 (and earlier versions, I expect, but I don't know the details).
Another way of looking at it is that Access 2007 can be made to act as if it
was Access 2003. In that sense it supports previous versions of Access. By
extension, it supports User Level Security.
The reasons Replication and User Level Security are not used in the new
Access file format have been discussed elsewhere, so I won't try to reprise
those discussions here. However, they are still around, and will be for
some time to come. They are not "dead", nor is Jet.
message
Access 2007 doesn't support replication.
it's really simple math.
Access 2007 doesn't support 'User Level Security'.
Maybe I'm implying the word 'format' but I don't care
Jet and Replication and User Level Security are all dead; and they
have been for a decade
Access 2007 is compatible with previous versions of Access, and can be used
to create databases using the mdb file format. Such mdb databases can use
the features, including User Level security, found in databases created with
Access 2003 (and earlier versions, I expect, but I don't know the details).
Another way of looking at it is that Access 2007 can be made to act as if it
was Access 2003. In that sense it supports previous versions of Access. By
extension, it supports User Level Security.
The reasons Replication and User Level Security are not used in the new
Access file format have been discussed elsewhere, so I won't try to reprise
those discussions here. However, they are still around, and will be for
some time to come. They are not "dead", nor is Jet.
message
Access 2007 doesn't support replication.
it's really simple math.
Access 2007 doesn't support 'User Level Security'.
Maybe I'm implying the word 'format' but I don't care
Jet and Replication and User Level Security are all dead; and they
have been for a decade
B
BruceM
OK. I forgot about that version. Thanks for the update.
B
BruceM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug
Something can work as intended and still become outdated. There are
countless examples of technologies that have been replaced by other
technologies. This does not mean the earlier versions had "bugs".
message
wow. so 'not providing much real security' is not a bug?
Something can work as intended and still become outdated. There are
countless examples of technologies that have been replaced by other
technologies. This does not mean the earlier versions had "bugs".
message
wow. so 'not providing much real security' is not a bug?
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
technically, replication and user level security were removed from
Access.
Sorry- but i won't let you spread misinformation.
-Aaron
Access.
Sorry- but i won't let you spread misinformation.
-Aaron
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
oh Jet _IS_ dead
www.microsoft.com/sql I mean-- SQL Server is the worlds most popular
database, straight from the horses mouth
www.microsoft.com/sql I mean-- SQL Server is the worlds most popular
database, straight from the horses mouth
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
UH.. IF IT DID NOT PROVIDE REAL SECURITY; THUS IT IS TOO BUGGY
G
George Hepworth
IMHO, the best way to deal with trolls is a two-part strategy.
1. Ignore their standard rantings.
2. Step in when it is necessary to correct a misstatement that could
potentially mislead a novice poster.
While it is true that novice posters don't know a great deal about Access,
it is also true that most of them are smart enough to figure out quite
quickly , and on their own, who the trolls are.
1. Ignore their standard rantings.
2. Step in when it is necessary to correct a misstatement that could
potentially mislead a novice poster.
While it is true that novice posters don't know a great deal about Access,
it is also true that most of them are smart enough to figure out quite
quickly , and on their own, who the trolls are.
G
George Hepworth
IMHO, the best way to deal with trolls is a two-part strategy.
1. Ignore their standard rantings.
2. Step in when it is necessary to correct a misstatement that could
potentially mislead a novice poster.
While it is true that novice posters don't know a great deal about Access,
it is also true that most of them are smart enough to figure out quite
quickly, and on their own, who the trolls are.
1. Ignore their standard rantings.
2. Step in when it is necessary to correct a misstatement that could
potentially mislead a novice poster.
While it is true that novice posters don't know a great deal about Access,
it is also true that most of them are smart enough to figure out quite
quickly, and on their own, who the trolls are.
D
David W. Fenton
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
m:
This is incorrect. Only the ACCDB format lacks replication. MDB,
which is a native A2K7 format, completely supports replication.
This is incorrect. Only the ACCDB format lacks user-level security.
MDB, which is a native A2K7 format, completely supports ULS.
There are so many things you don't care about, chief of them being
plain old accuracy and truth.
Odd, given that MS put so much effort into vastly enhancing Jet
replication in Jet 4 (released to the public in Access 2000 in 1999)
if they thought Jet replication was dead.
You are so completely wrong on everything, Aaron.
wrote in
m:
This is incorrect. Only the ACCDB format lacks replication. MDB,
which is a native A2K7 format, completely supports replication.
This is incorrect. Only the ACCDB format lacks user-level security.
MDB, which is a native A2K7 format, completely supports ULS.
There are so many things you don't care about, chief of them being
plain old accuracy and truth.
Odd, given that MS put so much effort into vastly enhancing Jet
replication in Jet 4 (released to the public in Access 2000 in 1999)
if they thought Jet replication was dead.
You are so completely wrong on everything, Aaron.
P
posted_by_anonymous
a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o said:
Neither technically or otherwise were they removed from Access. Support was
not provided in one of the database file format options of Access 2007 -- the
ACCDB. Both are alive and well in Access 2007, which can, and often is used
to, generate MDB and MdE databases in which both are still supported.
You try really, really hard to spread misinformation. Let's get this
straight: it is not _mis_information you want to prevent, it is real,
accurate information because real, accurate information destroys your weak
arguments. You can protest that the truth is misinformation, but there will
be plenty to counter your claims with truth.
Anony Mous
P.S. Mr George Hepworth, please spare us, we know your opinion on dealing
with stinking trolls, it doesn't work with this one -- he just continues to
stink up the place.
P
posted_by_anonymous
a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o said:
How stupid do you have to be to continue to make this claim, while Microsoft
just continues to enhance, derive from, and include Jet capability in every
Access release? Very, very stupid, aaron... that can also be said as "Very
Very Stupid Aaron" and still be correct.
SQL Server may be the "world's most popular server database", but that might
be just marketing hype, too, considering the source is the home for promoting
MS SQL Server.
But, by any measure... number of installations, number of people creating
databases with it, or number of databases created with it, Access with
Jet/ACCDB is far more popular.
Uh, oh, you're giving him an edge. Going round and round may just make you
dizzy. aaron is used to that, because he's dizzy all the time... has been for
a decade, or two. (DECADE, get it aaron? one of 'em is TEN YEARS and two of
'em are TWENTY YEARS... how many YEARS could you have gotten for
cyberstalking if Daddy's expensive and clever attorney hadn't plea bargained
your punishment down?)
You are being overly generous in your assessment, Mr Fenton. He's not NEARLY
that intelligent, not NEARLY. But, hey, we know you are a generous person.
Anony Mous
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
you really need me to find it in writing-- in a dozen different
places- that DAO and Jet are officially depecrated; and they have been
for a decade?
do you really believe this:
But, by any measure... number of installations, number of people
creating
databases with it, or number of databases created with it, Access with
Jet/ACCDB is far more popular.
how about you go and count the # of jobs for 'microsoft access' vs the
number of jobs for 'sql server' and we'll trade notes, ok?
Oh wait a second-- jet wont' scale high enough to let you keep track
of that ROFL
places- that DAO and Jet are officially depecrated; and they have been
for a decade?
do you really believe this:
But, by any measure... number of installations, number of people
creating
databases with it, or number of databases created with it, Access with
Jet/ACCDB is far more popular.
how about you go and count the # of jobs for 'microsoft access' vs the
number of jobs for 'sql server' and we'll trade notes, ok?
Oh wait a second-- jet wont' scale high enough to let you keep track
of that ROFL
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
how long would you have gotten in jail if a single word went the other
way?
I don't think that you know how close it was to going 180 degrees the
other way, kids
-Aaron
way?
I don't think that you know how close it was to going 180 degrees the
other way, kids
-Aaron
B
BruceM
you really need me to find it in writing-- in a dozen different
Yes. Credible sources only. I can no doubt find it in writing in more than
a dozen places that the earth is flat, but I will not be convinced. Blog
rantings don't count.
Take as long as you need. A month or two would be good.
Yes. Credible sources only. I can no doubt find it in writing in more than
a dozen places that the earth is flat, but I will not be convinced. Blog
rantings don't count.
Take as long as you need. A month or two would be good.
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
convicted is different than plead.
sorry
and no, it's not a matter of record because nothing goes on my record
today a year ago or a year from now.
sorry
and no, it's not a matter of record because nothing goes on my record
today a year ago or a year from now.
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
B
bcap
Don't matter what you "plead", fact is you were found guilty. This is a
matter of public record.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Convict (v): Prove or find guilty"
"Conviction (n): Verdict of guilty".
You are a convicted criminal.
matter of public record.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Convict (v): Prove or find guilty"
"Conviction (n): Verdict of guilty".
You are a convicted criminal.