Linux

[Tony Toews]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is no charge
>for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and that includes if
>they end up doing hot fixes and such.[/color]

And a good example of this is the initial OpLocks problem. Once MS was able to
reproduce the problem, which took several weeks, they had a solution which was the
registry key seting.

Took them several months to get a KB article out though.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[James Fortune]

Re: Linux

Tony Toews <ttoews@teluspl anet.net> wrote in message news:<1lmhc0pf3 i3co3ilc3778114 vlcqshn0m1@4ax. com>...[color=blue]
> jafortun@oaklan d.edu (James Fortune) wrote:
>[color=green]
> >I have been running samba 3.0.1 as a backend for Access 97 for about
> >five weeks. The only comments I have heard so far is that the system
> >is running a little faster than before.[/color]
>
> What was it running before? I ask because I'd like to know what versions work well.[/color]

It was on the NT 4.0 SP 6a server before. The move to Linux was
transparent to the users. I didn't try it with any previous versions
of samba. The version of Linux is Suse Pro 8.1 (Pre-Novell).
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >I use the line 'veto oplock
> >files = /*.mdb/*.MDB' in the smb.conf file.[/color]
>
> Was this set on general principles or because you were having problems.[/color]

This was based on a recommendation from an admin posting on one of the
NG's. It was not implemented due to any problems.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >The system has about 40 simultaneous users.[/color]
>
> Nice to hear.[/color]

I have the habit of compacting to another name and compacting back.
It is a habit developed from the tendency of Access95 to corrupt
databases just by compacting them. The db is compacted to a hard
drive on a different machine and also burned to CD. There still have
been no problems reported.
[color=blue]
>
> Tony[/color]

James A. Fortune

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40c921d7$1 @news.microsoft .com:
[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9504D2C 254EDdfentonbwa ynetinvali@24.1 68.128.86...[color=green]
>> "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
>> wrote in news:40c8e48a$1 @news.microsoft .com:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
>> > their implementation that trashes your database?[/color]
>>
>> Is Microsoft?
>>
>> I don't think so![/color]
>
> Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
> no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
> that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.[/color]

Er, that's hardly "liability. " That's just support.

MS will *not* admit to any liability, financial or otherwise, for
damage to or loss of data. Indeed, all of their EULAs spell this out
explicitly.
[color=blue]
> I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of
> that policy, and have found the notion of what is supported to be
> a very comfortable place upon which to sit.[/color]

Support <> liability.

Given that Samba costs nothing, it shouldn't be surprising that you
would have to pay a service provider for support.

I just don't see a difference here.

But I actually do agree with you that I would never recommend
storing Jet data on a Linux server. I just don't see the point.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

Tony Toews <ttoews@teluspl anet.net> wrote in
news:bliic0dc15 lb6q1mu06f0og6m ke899uh5b@4ax.c om:
[color=blue]
> "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
>>no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
>>that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.[/color]
>
> And a good example of this is the initial OpLocks problem. Once
> MS was able to reproduce the problem, which took several weeks,
> they had a solution which was the registry key seting.
>
> Took them several months to get a KB article out though.[/color]

But they didn't pay the people whose data files were trashed for the
time it took to recover the data.

Michael's original comment was about liability, not support.

It's fine to change the subject, but downplaying the use of Samba
because there's no one liable for damaged data makes no sense, as
Microsoft itself explicitly denies any liability for damaged data in
all of its EULAs.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Tony Toews]

Re: Linux

jafortun@oaklan d.edu (James Fortune) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >I have been running samba 3.0.1 as a backend for Access 97 for about
>> >five weeks. The only comments I have heard so far is that the system
>> >is running a little faster than before.[/color]
>>
>> What was it running before? I ask because I'd like to know what versions work well.[/color]
>
>It was on the NT 4.0 SP 6a server before. The move to Linux was
>transparent to the users. I didn't try it with any previous versions
>of samba. The version of Linux is Suse Pro 8.1 (Pre-Novell).
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >I use the line 'veto oplock
>> >files = /*.mdb/*.MDB' in the smb.conf file.[/color]
>>
>> Was this set on general principles or because you were having problems.[/color]
>
>This was based on a recommendation from an admin posting on one of the
>NG's. It was not implemented due to any problems.[/color]

Thanks for posting back.
[color=blue]
>I have the habit of compacting to another name and compacting back.
>It is a habit developed from the tendency of Access95 to corrupt
>databases just by compacting them. The db is compacted to a hard
>drive on a different machine and also burned to CD. There still have
>been no problems reported.[/color]

Totally agree with this concept.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at

http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[OM]

Re: Linux

"Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:40c8e48a$1 @news.microsoft .com...
<snip>[color=blue]
> Maybe. Its not supported by MS. Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
> their implementation that trashes your database?[/color]
<snip>

Sorry for this big snips here, and taking just one line of your reply to
task - Is Microsoft liable if there is some bug in their implementation that
trashes your database ?

Rob Lepper

(Answer - I think not.....)

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

Sigh.

Hello trees, meet forest. But I am very proud how you all can have such
perfect posts that you feel superior enough to nitpick individual words....

Let me know when you all are ready to get back to Access?

MichKa

"OM" <lepperrj@loxin fo.dot.co.th> wrote in message
news:cadqig$klu $1@news.loxinfo .co.th...[color=blue]
> "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:40c8e48a$1 @news.microsoft .com...
> <snip>[color=green]
> > Maybe. Its not supported by MS. Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
> > their implementation that trashes your database?[/color]
> <snip>
>
> Sorry for this big snips here, and taking just one line of your reply to
> task - Is Microsoft liable if there is some bug in their implementation[/color]
that[color=blue]
> trashes your database ?
>
> Rob Lepper
>
> (Answer - I think not.....)
>
>[/color]

[Steve]

Re: Linux


Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean that
courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for many
reason.

It is only common sense that Microsoft has more liability regarding
its products running on supported systems than non-supported systems.
How can you even start to argue Microsoft's liability regarding the
Access failures to operate as stated is the same on a recommended
Windows system versus non-supported Samba system?

For example, if Microsoft knew that Access trashes your hard disk on a
supported Windows operating system, and they did not inform their
users of such, their EULA most likely would not save them from
potential legal liability. Such knowledge regarding Samba would not
put them at the same level of risk - because they do not claim that
Access runs on it.

Steven


On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:57:03 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
>wrote in news:40c921d7$1 @news.microsoft .com:
>[color=green]
>> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9504D2C 254EDdfentonbwa ynetinvali@24.1 68.128.86...[color=darkred]
>>> "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
>>> wrote in news:40c8e48a$1 @news.microsoft .com:
>>>
>>> > Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
>>> > their implementation that trashes your database?
>>>
>>> Is Microsoft?
>>>
>>> I don't think so![/color]
>>
>> Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
>> no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
>> that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.[/color]
>
>Er, that's hardly "liability. " That's just support.
>
>MS will *not* admit to any liability, financial or otherwise, for
>damage to or loss of data. Indeed, all of their EULAs spell this out
>explicitly.
>[color=green]
>> I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of
>> that policy, and have found the notion of what is supported to be
>> a very comfortable place upon which to sit.[/color]
>
>Support <> liability.
>
>Given that Samba costs nothing, it shouldn't be surprising that you
>would have to pay a service provider for support.
>
>I just don't see a difference here.
>
>But I actually do agree with you that I would never recommend
>storing Jet data on a Linux server. I just don't see the point.
>
>--
>David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
>dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]

[Steve Jorgensen]

Re: Linux

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:57:19 GMT, steve@nospam.co m (Steve) wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean that
>courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for many
>reason.[/color]

That's why Microsoft actually pushed laws through saying that their contracts
are valid. In fact, if the laws had gone on the books as originally composed,
commercial software providers would have no liability, but providers of free,
open source software would be legally unable to protect themselves from
liability. I think, in some states, they actualloy got it passed in that
form.

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

Its nice that someone has an understanding of the landscape....


--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.


"Steve" <steve@nospam.c om> wrote in message
news:40cb41f5.1 2401111@news.we stnet.com...[color=blue]
>
> Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean that
> courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for many
> reason.
>
> It is only common sense that Microsoft has more liability regarding
> its products running on supported systems than non-supported systems.
> How can you even start to argue Microsoft's liability regarding the
> Access failures to operate as stated is the same on a recommended
> Windows system versus non-supported Samba system?
>
> For example, if Microsoft knew that Access trashes your hard disk on a
> supported Windows operating system, and they did not inform their
> users of such, their EULA most likely would not save them from
> potential legal liability. Such knowledge regarding Samba would not
> put them at the same level of risk - because they do not claim that
> Access runs on it.
>
> Steven
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:57:03 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
> <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
> >wrote in news:40c921d7$1 @news.microsoft .com:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns9504D2C 254EDdfentonbwa ynetinvali@24.1 68.128.86...
> >>> "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
> >>> wrote in news:40c8e48a$1 @news.microsoft .com:
> >>>
> >>> > Is Samba liable if there is some bug in
> >>> > their implementation that trashes your database?
> >>>
> >>> Is Microsoft?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think so!
> >>
> >> Well, when MS supports the platform and its due to a bug, there is
> >> no charge for the support no matter where it is escalated to, and
> >> that includes if they end up doing hot fixes and such.[/color]
> >
> >Er, that's hardly "liability. " That's just support.
> >
> >MS will *not* admit to any liability, financial or otherwise, for
> >damage to or loss of data. Indeed, all of their EULAs spell this out
> >explicitly.
> >[color=darkred]
> >> I have (on behalf of customers) been able to take advantage of
> >> that policy, and have found the notion of what is supported to be
> >> a very comfortable place upon which to sit.[/color]
> >
> >Support <> liability.
> >
> >Given that Samba costs nothing, it shouldn't be surprising that you
> >would have to pay a service provider for support.
> >
> >I just don't see a difference here.
> >
> >But I actually do agree with you that I would never recommend
> >storing Jet data on a Linux server. I just don't see the point.
> >
> >--
> >David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
> >dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc[/color]
>[/color]

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

steve@nospam.co m (Steve) wrote in
news:40cb41f5.1 2401111@news.we stnet.com:
[color=blue]
> Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean
> that courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for
> many reason.[/color]

So, in other words, you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
them.
[color=blue]
> It is only common sense that Microsoft has more liability
> regarding its products running on supported systems than
> non-supported systems. How can you even start to argue Microsoft's
> liability regarding the Access failures to operate as stated is
> the same on a recommended Windows system versus non-supported
> Samba system?[/color]

Zero legal liability is zero legal liability, regardless of whether
it's because the chief legal entity is unsueable or because there is
no legal entity to sue.
[color=blue]
> For example, if Microsoft knew that Access trashes your hard disk
> on a supported Windows operating system, and they did not inform
> their users of such, their EULA most likely would not save them
> from potential legal liability. Such knowledge regarding Samba
> would not put them at the same level of risk - because they do not
> claim that Access runs on it.[/color]

I'm not *for* using Samba with Jet. Indeed, I'm mostly against and
would never recommend it for a client.

But the point is that in terms of liability, Microsoft is no more
provably liable for damage to your data than Samba.

I strongly doubt that you'd be able to beat a Microsoft legal team,
since there are far too many factors involved in any data loss
scenario. Likewise, MS has been saying for many years that they
don't recommend Jet for mission-critical data, so you would be using
it for that at your own risk. I can't see how you'd win a lawsuit
for anything but mission-critical data, so MS would always have the
out that their stated policy is to not use Jet for that kind of data
storage, so if you lost data, it was your own fault for mis-using
their tools.

I am not saying I agree with MS's interpretation.

I am only saying that the courts are much more likely to take MS's
side because the argument *sounds* reasonable, on the surface.

It's pretty clear that our justice system in this country cannot
deal well with computer issues (hence the complete gutting of the
anti-trust finding against MS that has left them able to whatever
the hell they choose, with impunity).

Why you would count on a lawsuit to hold MS liable in the case of
data loss, I can't fathom.

It's also a very, very weak argument.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40ca8c12@n ews.microsoft.c om:
[color=blue]
> Hello trees, meet forest. But I am very proud how you all can have
> such perfect posts that you feel superior enough to nitpick
> individual words....
>
> Let me know when you all are ready to get back to Access?[/color]

It is apparent from your first reply to my statement of the same
objection that you didn't mean "liability, " but you meant "support."
You really meant that there is a designated responsible party who
can provide you with help in solving problems.

You ignore that fact that with Samba, there's also a whole group of
people (none of whom will charge you and to whom you've never paid
anything) and various service providers who will (for a price, but
you've also paid a price to Microsoft) provide you with support.

And, of course, with Samba, you always have the possibility of
digging into the code yourself and figuring out what went wrong and
fixing it yourself (or hiring someone to do it).

I'm not an open source zealot, no, but I think that the Microsoft
party line about the "risks" of depending on open source software is
all FUD.

All of it.

Every last bit of it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]]

Re: Linux

"David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote...
[color=blue]
> I'm not an open source zealot, no, but I think that the Microsoft
> party line about the "risks" of depending on open source software is
> all FUD.
>
> All of it.
>
> Every last bit of it.[/color]

Thats an interesting opinion. I guess we'll just have to disagree, since the
risks of running any software on platfoms for which the extensive testing
suites of multiple computers takes DAYS to do a full regression run on are
obvious to lots of others (including me). And the prior sentence does indeed
describe Access on Win2000, XP, and Server 2003.

It is hardly FUD to express more confidence on software systems that provide
such an assurance for their products. It is just common sense.


--
MichKa [MS]
NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies

This posting is provided "AS IS" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Linux

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online .microsoft.com>
wrote in news:40cb7d4e$1 @news.microsoft .com:
[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote...
>[color=green]
>> I'm not an open source zealot, no, but I think that the Microsoft
>> party line about the "risks" of depending on open source software
>> is all FUD.
>>
>> All of it.
>>
>> Every last bit of it.[/color]
>
> Thats an interesting opinion. I guess we'll just have to disagree,
> since the risks of running any software on platfoms for which the
> extensive testing suites of multiple computers takes DAYS to do a
> full regression run on are obvious to lots of others (including
> me). And the prior sentence does indeed describe Access on
> Win2000, XP, and Server 2003.[/color]

But if you're fixing Samba to run on *your* hardware, there is no
need for all that testing. You only need a fix that runs on your
hardware.

Now, if you put the fix back into the development tree for Samba,
then, yes, it will need to be tested.

But to get a solution to a problem with Samba, all you need is a
programmer who knows his or her way around the Samba code base.

You have no such chance with a problem from Microsoft, unless MS
decides to patch it for everyone. And such a patch will, naturally,
be greatly delayed precisely because MS can't do it just for you --
they have to test it for everyone.
[color=blue]
> It is hardly FUD to express more confidence on software systems
> that provide such an assurance for their products. It is just
> common sense.[/color]

No, there's nothing sensible about MS's party line of open source at
all. Most of it is contrafactual, in fact.

If your problem is a bug that is causing data corruption, you're
going to get it fixed sooner with open source software than with
Microsoft, unless it's a bug that MS has already patched. But in
that case, there would be no liability on MS's part, because you
would be to blame for using the unpatched software.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Steve]

Re: Linux

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:31:30 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dXXXfenton@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>steve@nospam.c om (Steve) wrote in
>news:40cb41f5. 12401111@news.w estnet.com:
>[color=green]
>> Just because Microsoft EULA spell something out, does not mean
>> that courts will uphold it. Contractual terms are overturned for
>> many reason.[/color]
>
>So, in other words, you will gladly assume that Microsoft is
>dishonest and feel that you are protected by the ability to sue
>them.
>[/color]

No David, nothing in my posts implies that Microsoft is dishonest, nor
that I feel protected because I can sue Microsoft.

Microsoft wrote an EULA that best protects their interest - nothing
corrupt about that. But like in every business agreement, the courts
can overturn certain clauses. A classic case is the non-compete
clause in many employment contracts. If such clauses are unreasonable
under certain situations, the courts can invalid them, even if all
parties agreed to the terms.

Getting back to the discussion, clearly, if Microsoft knew that Access
was crashing hard disks running under a recommended Windows OS, and
Microsoft made no attempt to inform such users, an EULA would not
provide complete legal liability protection to Microsoft. However, if
Microsoft new that under Samba, Access could crash hard disks, I doubt
that they have legal responsibility to inform their users; and if the
did, clearly not the same level of responsibility running under
Windows.

You bring up how difficult it would be to defeat Microsoft in court -
given their vast resources. So true, but that does not nullify the
above.

My comfort in using Access under Windows rather than Samba does not
come from my ability to sue Microsoft and win. It comes from the fact
that Microsoft has more of a legal and corporate responsibility for
the proper operation of its applications under its recommended
operating systems; and they will reflect that in their research,
development, and of course, testing.

<snip>
[color=blue]
>Why you would count on a lawsuit to hold MS liable in the case of
>data loss, I can't fathom.
>
>It's also a very, very weak argument.[/color]

The only thing I can't fathom is why you have morphed this discussion
from legal responsibility to actually winning a lawsuit. Just
because you have legal responsibility to perform in a certain way,
does not mean that you will be successfully sued or convicted if you
violate such responsbility.

Steven