|
I am using firebird 2.0 embedded with the .NET wrapper and works great 
http://stefanprodan.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
I do
Embedded Firebird turned out to be a good solution to my company's needs. I developped an application that people install on notebooks and use it on remote locations to acquire data and do some calculations and reportings, using Firebird embedded database. Later, those notebooks are connected to their company's network and data is transferred to main SQLServer database for further processing.
--
Vladimir Svrkota,
CardWare
Novi Sad, Serbia.
|
|
|
|
|
What about Berkeley DB?
It is open source !
"Silence will create respect and dignity; justice and fair play will bring more friends;
benevolence and charity will enhance prestige and position; courtesy will draw benevolence;
service of mankind will secure leadership and good words will overcome powerful enemies"
Ali (Peace be upon him)
|
|
|
|
|
Come on people. How is it ever going to die if you keep developing for it.
Access is a short first only when contiplating using flat files.
True greatness consist in being great in little things
|
|
|
|
|
Legacy is a drug. You just don't want to quit it...
|
|
|
|
|
I found that cold turkey was the best approach : never install access again
True greatness consist in being great in little things
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, but that is not always possible in the case of customers. Some people are content with stuff that works, over total reinstallation of their software, just because the totally uninteresting piece of technology that drives their app, has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. Shoot all the customers! - no wait . . . that would be bad for us  - I hate it when I can't get myself to agree with myself.
True greatness consist in being great in little things
|
|
|
|
|
Brainwash the customers, provide a new installer with conversion script. This should get them over the SQL more easily.
I had a customer once who insisted on using Access as the backend. This way he could change the data if the application did something wrong. I had a spontanious urge to hit him on the head when I heard his plans.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
"What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Smart Customer!!! lolz:->
|
|
|
|
|
I guess many people voted for Access even if they actually meant the Jet Database. I think it makes a huge difference if I'm developing for Access or if I use Jet databases.
As for me, I'm not the one who says Jet is bad in general. If you use it in the right place its a great and straightforward data storage. Sure, Jet is not designed to be accessed by many user at the same time, but so aren't .xml, .doc, .xls and whatever files. So why not using it?
"All languages allow you to write crap code, VB just makes it easier (IMO)."
Michael P Butler
|
|
|
|
|
I had a vote for Access because we use the Jet database, not the Access front-end, and it was the closest option I could find listed. We use them for local data stores for a distributed application that runs on 100's of user's desktops. However, we are planning on migrating away from Jet and replacing that with SQL Server Compact Edition. It's been a good tool. I have had no problems with using it simply for a data store. We are only moving away from it because Microsoft has dictated that we do.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an intern at work and I take great joy in every Access-driven app I move to MS SQL 
|
|
|
|
|
I use Access as a springboard to get at our Oracle 9i database.
I'll stop when VS2005 stops bitching at me that we need at least 8.1.
Paul Watson wrote:
Like, if you say sort of, like, you know, one more, you know, time, I'm going to, like, you know, sort of sort you out, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Couple of reasons you might use Access:
- easy to grab a full backup snapshot from the web host
- some web hosts overcharge for sql server, and you might just need basic DB functionality
- a bit easier to publish your DB; just upload.
- is capable of running moderately busy sites. However if you start getting 2000+ user session per day you might start getting issues with concurrent writes to the Access DB.
But yeah, better to avoid access nowadays esp. if your site will potentially grow to become very busy (SQL 2005 Express is a good an alternative).
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
|
|
|
|
|
We're getting rid of the damn thing, migrating to SQL!
|
|
|
|
|
We have users with a gig and a half Access database!!! Yes it dies on a regular bases. They are planning to move to an SQL server, sometime...
djj
|
|
|
|
|
It surprises me a bit that Oracle is not that popular.
We found out that SQL Server still lacks functionality that is present in Oracle, like e.g. consistent snapshot reading without locking the database.
In Oracle you can simply start a read-only translation, which will cause all subsequent queries to read from a snapshot without locking the database.
For our applications this is important since we need to load huge (and consistent) databases into memory in order to run simulations on it. Since other processes update the database at the same time, we don't want to lock the database to have this consistent view on it.
Apparently this functionality is standard in Oracle, while it can only be achieved in SQL Server by buying the very expensive Enterprise Edition (or at least I think this was the name).
Do some of you have this same problem or know a workaround for it on SQL Server?
Patje
Enjoy life, this is not a rehearsal !!!
|
|
|
|
|
We found Oracle requires a 50k DBA to be employed with every copy of Oracle.
.net is a box of never ending treasures, every day I get find another gem.
|
|
|
|
|
There's your problem...
You're using budget DBA's.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
So whats the going rate today for a Oracle DBA 100k+ ?
.net is a box of never ending treasures, every day I get find another gem.
|
|
|
|
|
Grimolfr wrote: You're using budget DBA's.
(Haskell syntax):
dollars gbp = gbp * 2
|
|
|
|
|
I once worked in an Oracle only (and proud of it!) shop that was required by a major customer to investigate supporting SQL Server. We eventually moved to SQL Server, apart from cost (like the 50K DBAs) it was simply the time taken to do a database backup and the whole process that was involved in it. SQL Server was simpler, and a hell of a lot quicker to backup. Although having said that we probably had to resort to using those backups a bit more than we previously had to with Oracle (but you can't win em all).
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server is a no brainer too me 1/2 hour to pick it up, simple and intuative, With oracle everything had to be done with sqlplus  or TOAD.
.net is a box of never ending treasures, every day I get find another gem.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
