Text 3556, 308 rader
Skriven 2005-04-10 16:49:14 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 3551 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: s/w patents bad 4 ms...
===================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_07AB_01C53DED.3A836400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It just goes to show that you see what you want to see. Had you =
actually read the KB articles someone not prejudiced would see that that = the
reason an unintended index may be selected is that ODBC does not = return the
primary index and that the index must be guessed. Nowhere = does it claim that
wrong data is returned.
Rich
"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message =
news:6e8j51t7a8r68aktqpe4q5aqhp7h6curd7@4ax.com...
btw, for more info:
SYMPTOMS
When you link (attach) a table from an ODBC data source, such as
Microsoft SQL Server or ORACLE, and that table contains more than one
unique index, Microsoft Access may select the wrong index as the =
primary
key.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;292047
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;169777
Notice the "This behavior is by design." under the Status category of
the second link.
The existence of this problem, and Microsoft's lack of interest in
resolving it, was noticed at the CEO and CFO level in my company. I
suspect that such a cavalier attitude by Microsoft towards the =
validity
of the results that MS Access provides will not be A [long-term] Good
Thing for Microsoft at my company.
The question I cannot understand is how can Microsft leave such a =
known
and critical bug unfixed for over ten years?
/m
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:42:55 -0700, Ellen K.
<72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote:
>That's pretty gross all right.
>
>What versions of Access and Oracle?
>
>I used Access 97 against Oracle 8i at Kaiser without this problem, =
and
>know I didn't have it because I would periodically check the Oracle =
data
>(retrieved using Access) against the DB2 data on the mainframe
>(retrieved interactively) of which it was a clone.
>
>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:10:42 -0400, Mike '/m' <mike@barkto.com> wrote =
in
>message <d5ji511u416i5k7mrgpcdrrk8h8b8ljbtb@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:51:59 -0400, "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Adam Flinton" <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4258f782$1@w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>> Anyway....the point that was made then was along the lines of =
that's it
>>>> for upgrades of office coz quite frankly the users have =
everything they
>>>> need now
>>>
>>>I don't think MS realizes yet what it was that powered that growth =
surge
>>>they had in the 90's.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>As for Office, we never used it. We went with Works because our =
users simply
>>>don't have the skills to require more than that. We've got maybe 4 =
copies of
>>>Office but only so we can convert files we get from customers, and =
we
>>>convert those to paper <g>.
>>>
>>>When I order new computers, I order them without hard drives as a =
way to
>>>insure that I'm not going to pay for any new copies of an OS I'm =
not going
>>>to be using. (well except for laptops)
>>
>>We use MS Office across the board where I work. Unfortunately, MS
>>Access is becoming entrenched as well. That is frightening because =
of
>>all the problems it has, especially the one we found last week. MS
>>Access seems to return "unexpected results" when used with an ODBC
>>connection in some instances. We had production and accounting =
people
>>making customer-affecting decisions based upon the bad data that MS
>>Access was returning. The Software Engineer (one of the most senior =
on
>>the team) wrote this in his status report:
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D
>>Worked with [names of users and other Software Engineers deleted to
>>protect the innocent] to design and implement a work-around for a
>>stunningly stupid bug in Microsoft Access. When Access is used to
>>view/update an Oracle table, it sometimes fetches the wrong rows. =
There
>>is no error or warning. The bad data could easily be accepted and =
used
>>in producing a sample, updating panelist accounts, or whatever the =
user
>>is doing.... This bug has existed for over ten years, and is =
documented
>>on Microsoft's web site. They apparently have no interest in fixing
>>it....
>>=3D=3D=3D
>>
>>For that particular Software Engineer to use the phrase "stunningly
>>stupid bug" (he bolded and italicized it) in his status report is
>>amazing. He is usually (nearly always) very low-key. *Very* low =
key. =20
>>
>>
>> /m
>>
>>
>>
>>
------=_NextPart_000_07AB_01C53DED.3A836400
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> It just goes to show that =
you see what=20
you want to see. Had you actually read the KB articles someone not =
prejudiced would see that that the reason an unintended index may be = selected
is=20
that ODBC does not return the primary index and that the index must be=20
guessed. Nowhere does it claim that wrong data is =
returned.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Mike '/m'" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:6e8j51t7a8r68aktqpe4q5aqhp7h6curd7@4ax.com">news:6e8j51t7a8r=
68aktqpe4q5aqhp7h6curd7@4ax.com</A>...</DIV><BR>btw,=20
for more info:<BR><BR>SYMPTOMS<BR>When you link (attach) a table from =
an ODBC=20
data source, such as<BR>Microsoft SQL Server or ORACLE, and that table =
contains more than one<BR>unique index, Microsoft Access may select =
the wrong=20
index as the primary<BR>key.<BR><BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;292047"=
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;292047</A><BR>=
<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;169777"=
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;EN-US;169777</A><BR>=
<BR>Notice=20
the "This behavior is by design." under the Status category of<BR>the =
second=20
link.<BR><BR>The existence of this problem, and Microsoft's lack of =
interest=20
in<BR>resolving it, was noticed at the CEO and CFO level in my =
company. =20
I<BR>suspect that such a cavalier attitude by Microsoft towards the=20
validity<BR>of the results that MS Access provides will not be A =
[long-term]=20
Good<BR>Thing for Microsoft at my company.<BR><BR>The question I =
cannot=20
understand is how can Microsft leave such a known<BR>and critical bug =
unfixed=20
for over ten years?<BR><BR> /m<BR><BR>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 =
14:42:55 -0700,=20
Ellen K.<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR><BR>>That's pretty gross all right.<BR>><BR>>What =
versions=20
of Access and Oracle?<BR>><BR>>I used Access 97 against Oracle =
8i at=20
Kaiser without this problem, and<BR>>know I didn't have it because =
I would=20
periodically check the Oracle data<BR>>(retrieved using Access) =
against the=20
DB2 data on the mainframe<BR>>(retrieved interactively) of which it =
was a=20
clone.<BR>><BR>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:10:42 -0400, Mike '/m' =
<<A=20
href=3D"mailto:mike@barkto.com">mike@barkto.com</A>> wrote =
in<BR>>message=20
<<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:d5ji511u416i5k7mrgpcdrrk8h8b8ljbtb@4ax.com">d5ji511u416i5k=
7mrgpcdrrk8h8b8ljbtb@4ax.com</A>>:<BR>><BR>>>On=20
Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:51:59 -0400, "Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>>"Adam Flinton" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com</A>> = wrote
in=20
=
message<BR>>>>news:4258f782$1@w3.nls.net...<BR>>>><BR>&=
gt;>>>=20
Anyway....the point that was made then was along the lines of that's=20
it<BR>>>>> for upgrades of office coz quite frankly the =
users have=20
everything they<BR>>>>> need =
now<BR>>>><BR>>>>I=20
don't think MS realizes yet what it was that powered that growth=20
surge<BR>>>>they had in the=20
=
90's.<BR>>>><BR>>>>[snip]<BR>>>><BR>>>&g=
t;As=20
for Office, we never used it. We went with Works because our users=20
simply<BR>>>>don't have the skills to require more than that. =
We've=20
got maybe 4 copies of<BR>>>>Office but only so we can =
convert=20
files we get from customers, and we<BR>>>>convert those to =
paper=20
<g>.<BR>>>><BR>>>>When I order new computers, =
I order=20
them without hard drives as a way to<BR>>>>insure that I'm =
not going=20
to pay for any new copies of an OS I'm not going<BR>>>>to be =
using.=20
(well except for laptops)<BR>>><BR>>>We use MS Office =
across the=20
board where I work. Unfortunately, MS<BR>>>Access is =
becoming=20
entrenched as well. That is frightening because =
of<BR>>>all the=20
problems it has, especially the one we found last week. =20
MS<BR>>>Access seems to return "unexpected results" when used =
with an=20
ODBC<BR>>>connection in some instances. We had production =
and=20
accounting people<BR>>>making customer-affecting decisions based =
upon=20
the bad data that MS<BR>>>Access was returning. The =
Software=20
Engineer (one of the most senior on<BR>>>the team) wrote this in =
his=20
status report:<BR>>><BR>>>=3D=3D=3D<BR>>>Worked with =
[names of=20
users and other Software Engineers deleted to<BR>>>protect the =
innocent]=20
to design and implement a work-around for a<BR>>>stunningly =
stupid bug=20
in Microsoft Access. When Access is used =
to<BR>>>view/update an=20
Oracle table, it sometimes fetches the wrong rows. =
There<BR>>>is=20
no error or warning. The bad data could easily be accepted and=20
used<BR>>>in producing a sample, updating panelist accounts, or =
whatever=20
the user<BR>>>is doing.... This bug has existed for over ten =
years, and=20
is documented<BR>>>on Microsoft's web site. They =
apparently have=20
no interest in=20
=
fixing<BR>>>it....<BR>>>=3D=3D=3D<BR>>><BR>>>For =
that=20
particular Software Engineer to use the phrase =
"stunningly<BR>>>stupid=20
bug" (he bolded and italicized it) in his status report=20
is<BR>>>amazing. He is usually (nearly always) very =
low-key. =20
*Very* low key. <BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>=20
=
/m<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY=
></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_07AB_01C53DED.3A836400--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|