[Aman]

Both sides of the arguments have valid points.

Databases truthfully do have very different uses all around the world, so its value to the company is not pre-determined. That said, it is unfair to judge the importance of such a database and the suverity of its protection, since the database may not even be necessary, and just serving as a "reference" or a "I want my boss to feel safe" kind of task over anything else.

However, in most situations, databases are an important thing to have -- and they CANNOT be damaged!

Microsoft Access has a few huge design flaws. For example, if one wants to use the query function to perform powerful search tasks, they have to use the design mode -- able to destroy the entire arrangement right there. But to make things worse, the user can modify ANY information in their path! The "undo" function won't help if you don't know what you are doing and accidentally delete a collumn or row - most likely because, first of all, if you do this, you probably don't know how to use a computer and therefore you don't know about the undo function, but secondly and more terrifying, is that every little thing you do in Access is recorded and is able to be taken back. If you move from one friggin' cell to another, you've performed a function which can now be undone.

Simply said, Access is a very dangerous tool if in the wrong hands. One wrong move will send all of your information down the drain, and in many cases, to a point of no return.

HOWEVER, if you DON'T put thirty year old fat soccer moms in front of the computer managing the Access database, who shine on with pride about the computer course they took in community college that they almost got a B in, Access is a cost-effective and easy-to-use remedy for many situations where hiring a database professional or IT guy isn't an option.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Both sides of the arguments have valid points. Databases truthfully do have very different uses all around the world, so its value to the company is not pre-determined. That said, it is unfair to judge the importance of such a database and the suverity of its protection, since the database may not even be necessary, and just serving as a "reference" or a "I want my boss to feel safe" kind of task over anything else. However, in most situations, databases are an important thing to have -- and they CANNOT be damaged! Microsoft Access has a few huge design flaws. For example, if one wants to use the query function to perform powerful search tasks, they have to use the design mode -- able to destroy the entire arrangement right there. But to make things worse, the user can modify ANY information in their path! The "undo" function won't help if you don't know what you are doing and accidentally delete a collumn or row - most likely because, first of all, if you do this, you probably don't know how to use a computer and therefore you don't know about the undo function, but secondly and more terrifying, is that every little thing you do in Access is recorded and is able to be taken back. If you move from one friggin' cell to another, you've performed a function which can now be undone. Simply said, Access is a very dangerous tool if in the wrong hands. One wrong move will send all of your information down the drain, and in many cases, to a point of no return.

This is typical of all Microsoft products. Look at their operating systems. 3.1/9x gave the user root (sorry, Administrator) access without question. Granted, this is somewhat of a holdover from DOS, as they relied on that fairly heavily. However, the idea of granting complete and total access for a typical user; especially when said user is using the internet, is ludicrous.

With 2K/XP (more so XP, due to it's proliferation), some hope was had that they would wise up, and make use of the user permissions. Nope. Apparently the beta testers had problems with the idea of various access levels, so their 'fix' was to make everyone an Admin by default. Stupid, stupid, stupid. There's a good reason *nix has had a seperate root account since it's creation.


They claim in Vista they've changed the way users are granted permissions, though. Apparently everyone has a limited account, and it automatically switches over to Admin to install software. Or some such. They better have some sort of confirmation (not that it'd help with the average user intelligence, but it's a step in the right direction), or malware/virii can still install itself.

Quote:

HOWEVER, if you DON'T put thirty year old fat soccer moms in front of the computer managing the Access database, who shine on with pride about the computer course they took in community college that they almost got a B in, Access is a cost-effective and easy-to-use remedy for many situations where hiring a database professional or IT guy isn't an option.

Hehe... Those type simultaneously make me cringe and crack up. There are a few who actually know something, suprisingly. I had a couple soccer mom types in my Linux and Networking classes.

 

[PTheD]

Please excuse my intrusion on a conversation that I am quite lost in

and haven't even read entirely, but could someone put the ideas and opinions expressed here in laymens terms

such that someone not versed in database thoery could understand them?

 

[boodi]

I think the whole fuss is about a debate between two opposite positions : 1. the programmers ( their activity is porgramming applications for companies ) who suppose that users of applications better remain users only 2. the users who'd like to program their application and supporters of diy programming .

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpalmer Right there you've confirmed that you don't know what you're talking about Wodgy. Real world databases are very complex and that complexity has nothing to do with the relational model. You know, your attitude has been the cause of more problems in the IT field than any other...

If your "real-world" relationship database is complex, then you've already failed in creating a proper database.

No matter how many tables you have, no matter how many data structures you create, data keys for processing cubes and historicals, your relationship must always remain simple and succint.

The more "complex" you make it, the worse your database is.

And before you accuse me of "not knowing anything", which is a poor attempt at trying to rationalize your "superior knowledge", you should probably know that I design and analyze very complex data structures for a living. I've worked with and created databases that span terrabyes in size, house hundreds of data tables with hundreds more supporting tables. All with VERY SIMPLE designed schemas and summary cube reporting structures. We work with millions of data points for very mathmatically complex probability and statistical models. We do lots of data and text based mining for quality programs. We've been to quality (SAS) conferences to speak on what we do, and have had other companies implement our data and statstical models into their own six sigma and quality programs. I know a thing or two about a relationship database.

The fact that you are even USING ms SQL as your "complex" relationship database speaks volumes that; while you might be a good DBA with MS SQL, you have much to learn about what a complex database truly is. MS SQL can't even begin to handle the high level data structures we use. Though, we do use MS SQL for our summary statistical reporting. And for that it works fine. But MS SQLs query analyzer is horribly inefficient, and you often have to design queries WRONG just to get them to work faster.

To me, you sound like a disgruntled IT worker or DBA who has had to clean up one too many mess, and somehow that grants you a superior status over every other single computer user.

Get over yourself.

Just like you will probably never need to attempt to do the kinds of terradata and relationship models that I do, most users will never have a need to do what YOU do. There are varying degrees of computer use. You do not need to be a fully qualified expert just to attempt to use a computer. Your attitude makes me sad.

Do drive a car on a regular basis? If so, can you tell me exactly how your engine works? Can you rebuild your engine? Do you know what type of suspension your car has? Can you tell me exactly how your electronic fuel system and timing systems work?

Well if not, using your logic, you better cut up your drivers license and never touch a car again.

Honestly most people, in most professions, just need enough computer knowledge to get the job done. They don't NEED to have your level of knowledge, so why should they? Access and spreadsheets (and not just the MS variants) are great tools for the average office worker that just needs to compile some quick data. You don't need to build a perfect database for each application.

You wouldn't use a sledgehammer when all you need is a hand held hammer.

Get over yourself man, and quit trying to sound like you are some person operator from hell. IT people like that are a dime a dozen.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP Do drive a car on a regular basis? If so, can you tell me exactly how your engine works? Can you rebuild your engine? Do you know what type of suspension your car has? Can you tell me exactly how your electronic fuel system and timing systems work?

Whenever I think to myself, "Self, wouldn't it be great if there was some law that required all computer users to know how to fix their computer and applications when they broke?" I usually end up with your analogy. In my case, I could do the above, but there's also things I enjoy (playing guitar/bass, for instance) that I'd have no idea about. Yes, I know how they work, but I couldn't even begin to build one myself.

I'm still in favor of required basic literacy tests for computer usage, though. Just like driving - it's a privilege, and you should know some basics.

 

[boodi]

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Whenever I think to myself, "Self, wouldn't it be great if there was some law that required all computer users to know how to fix their computer and applications when they broke?" I usually end up with your analogy. In my case, I could do the above, but there's also things I enjoy (playing guitar/bass, for instance) that I'd have no idea about. Yes, I know how they work, but I couldn't even begin to build one myself.

Right, I also work on cars for a hobby. But people like you and me are 1 out 99 or 1 out of 1000 people that can even change their own oil. But somehow the rest of the world gets by just fine without this knowledge driving their cars. Which is just fine by me.

Quote:

I'm still in favor of required basic literacy tests for computer usage, though. Just like driving - it's a privilege, and you should know some basics.

Yea, but driving can get people killed. Improper computer use just wastes peoples time. Which if that affects ones job, then that's what they get paid to do, so why bitch and moan?

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP Right, I also work on cars for a hobby. But people like you and me are 1 out 99 or 1 out of 1000 people that can even change their own oil. But somehow the rest of the world gets by just fine without this knowledge driving their cars. Which is just fine by me.

common point here

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP Right, I also work on cars for a hobby. But people like you and me are 1 out 99 or 1 out of 1000 people that can even change their own oil. But somehow the rest of the world gets by just fine without this knowledge driving their cars. Which is just fine by me. ... Yea, but driving can get people killed. Improper computer use just wastes peoples time. Which if that affects ones job, then that's what they get paid to do, so why bitch and moan?

True. And I must admit, I do like the money gained from fixing people's computers. As I'm sure many other IT guys do. However, life would be much easier overall if people at least knew some basics. Things like, "Don't open strange attachments. Don't blindly click OK. Don't send forwards." And so on. I can't think of a single person IT who would want for virii and malware to become more of a problem. I don't care if I do make $40/hour fixing it, it's a royal PITA. I'd much rather be fixing a hardware problem, or tutoring someone. At least then I get some satisfaction in that I've given them worthwhile instruction, rather than showing up one day with a magically fixed computer.

 

[taylor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Agreed. When I was taking my AP Computer Science course in high school, the final was essentially to code something very good and innovative. I decided to take the route of "useful". I took in my laptop with my music collection on it (about 6000 mp3s at the time on my portable HD) and designed a program through Java (an applet, mind you) that served as an mp3 cateloger. It would automatically look at the filename of the mp3s and use the information to edit the ID3 tags of those files accordingly, if the information wasn't already there. I also built in a feature at the last minute to do the reverse -- to use the id3 tag information to make a standardized filename for all the mp3s in your collection. I thought this was an awesome idea, and some of my friends were very impressed. Needless to say, I chose to use a very standard, neat, and minimalist layout because it really only performed a few very simple but powerful tasks. This was a bad idea -- because I didn't use "flashy colors" and use "graphics", I got a C+. I, along with most everyone else, was incredibly useful and should have deserved a good grade. However, because of this, I walked out of school that final day of senior year with a C+ on my report card, with the rest of the grades being As and A+s. My teacher, as I found out later when I talked to him about this, didn't even know how to code java! (Or perl, or assembler, or C++... only visual basic )

Where can I download it?

As for access, it's not a problem, unless someone uses it who should use something else. My uncle used to work on databases. He was very good with SQL and Oracle. He would complain to me about his stupid boss who tried to use access for the big databases that needed SQL or Oracle.

Summary - Access is alright in the correct situation, but always use the right software for the job.

 

[Aman]

That is not a valid analogy. Cars do not contain private data which is the backbone of a multi-billion dollar corporation.

If you wanted to make a car analogy, though, Access would be like a car without a hood or a body of any sort. Sure, when you need it, it would allow you easier access to your car when you had to inspect it, but once you crash it -- you can say goodbye to your car and your life (most likely).

By the way, we should stop bragging about our credentials while we are ahead. After all, I am God... and nobody is better than that ... even people who work with terrabytes of information

Taylor: My program was Linux-only, but in my frustration I put it on a disk and erased it from my hard drive... surely enough, I can't find the disk now... and I have been far too busy/lazy to re-code it... though, now that I think about, I should have not only kept it, but also made it multi-platform and made it available under the open source liscense.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman That is not a valid analogy. Cars do not contain private data which is the backbone of a multi-billion dollar corporation. If you wanted to make a car analogy, though, Access would be like a car without a hood or a chasis of any sort. Sure, when you need it, it would allow you easier access to your car when you had to inspect it, but once you crash it -- you can say goodbye to your car and your life (most likely).

Good point. Although the analogy is flawed; a car could go nowhere without a chassis. Perhaps you were thinking without a body.

In any case, my thoughts on the subject are that if a user is granted rights to a critical part of a system, be that a database, program, or even write access to a directory, they should be fully qualified in its operation. I think oftentimes the problem is that middle/upper management starts thinking their job description applies to all things technical, and demand access to things they shouldn't be touching. Then, of course, when they break it, it's the IT department who's at fault.

 

[Aman]

I think you have the most sensible view on this topic thus far

And thanks for the correction. Don't know where I got chasis from...

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman That is not a valid analogy. Cars do not contain private data which is the backbone of a multi-billion dollar corporation. If you wanted to make a car analogy, though, Access would be like a car without a hood or a body of any sort. Sure, when you need it, it would allow you easier access to your car when you had to inspect it, but once you crash it -- you can say goodbye to your car and your life (most likely).

Aman, I respectfully disagree with your points.

1. Cars DO provide the backbone of the entire nations transportation and therefore economy.

2. Private data that is the backbone of a multi-billion dollar coporation is a SPECIALITY application. That is NOT a normal run-of-the-mill every day occurance. That's why the people who manage that type of thing are specialists. Someone who just wants to construct a poor-man's database in excel to crunch some numbers does not need to have the same level of knowledge as someone who supports an entire companies worth of data.

No. A car would be a tool like everything else. A vespa would be something like excel. A honda would be something like access. A ferrari would be like SAS or JMP applications. A multi-ton semi to haul large payloads effeciently would be a SQL or terradata multi-tiered data structure. You're thinking about it all wrong.

Right tool for the right job. Your analogy is saying that access is like an INCOMPLETE car. No, it's just a car that gets a CERTAIN job done (commuting), but when it comes to a power application, (racing or hauling) you need a different type of vehicle. Access is flawed for what you WOULD use it for, but it does certain things decently, easily and it's some what user friendly. I perosonally hate access, but I've seen some clever applications of it from people with VERY little database experience. Which means they didn't require special research or knowledge to use it. They just looked a few things up and made something. That to me says it's a decent product when you didn't need to have advanced prior knowledge to get something done.

Again, right tool for the right job people. Stop being jaded towards people just because they don't use things in the way you do. I'm not jaded towards regular database administrators or IT administrators just because they don't do what I do. It's not their job.

I don't think anyone is bragging about their credentials either. The only reason why I said what I did is I wanted to qualify my next statements because gpalmer already attacked someone for "not knowing anything". If he's going to call someone out, wrongly, then I'm going to put him in his place.