Base questions

users
#41

Hi :slight_smile:
i think that could get really confusing! At the moment internal means
within Base itself and external means anywhere else.

However the "anywhere else" is really quite a vast range of places! And
the back-end could even be moved from one place to another with very little
change in Base. Such places as

1. Same folder as Base (might seem a no-brainer at first)
2. Same machine (desktop?) but different folder
3. A shared folder on a local network, such as on a company file-server

I think back-ends can also be on;

4. A remote folder on an off-site machine
5. A database on a website
6. Up on a Cloud (err that is really 4 again, right?)

This is one way Base is more powerful than Access. Of course it one that
keeps being kept quiet in the race to try to make it seem as limited as
Access (because weeus only know Access, right??).

It's possible to use different programs to access the same data and use it
in different ways. Can Access be easily set-up as a networked database and
able to be read by multiple different users on different machines at the
same time as each other? I think it can but needs someone seriously
geeky. Base is designed to do it by default.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#42

Actually, it's just as easy to use Access as a front end to external DBMS'
as it is to use Base. As long as an ODBC driver is available and registered
in Windows, the external database looks like the native database. Just as
in Base, the features of the external DBMS have to be exposed by the driver
to be available to the front end. I know, because I've done it with more
than one external DBMS.

#43

This is one way Base is more powerful than Access.

That's the whole point.

By not focusing on promoting Base as *the* generic client-side FOSS tool
for access to client-server RDBMs, they're missing a *HUGE* opportunity.

And since Rekall has vanished (despite being GPL), there's not much in
terms of database tools (that don't require programming) in the FOSS
world. Kexi isn't available anywhere else than on Linux and it's
missing critical functionality (e.g. support for composite keys).

Of course it one that keeps being kept quiet in the race to try to
make it seem as limited as Access (because weeus only know Access,
right??).

It's possible to use different programs to access the same data and
use it in different ways. Can Access be easily set-up as a networked
database and able to be read by multiple different users on different
machines at the same time as each other?

In a reasonable way only with MS's own SQL Server. For anything else you
afaik need to go through ODBC and the results are horrible. Trying to
use Access as a client-side tool for e.g. PostgreSQL is like watching a
glacier melt. At least it was the last time I tried. And that's not a
problem of PostgreSQL ODBC support, but of the way that Access works
with other databases than SQL Server.

Sincerely,

Wolfgang

#44

Wolfgang Keller wrote:

This is one way Base is more powerful than Access.

That's the whole point.

By not focusing on promoting Base as *the* generic client-side FOSS tool
for access to client-server RDBMs, they're missing a *HUGE* opportunity.

And since Rekall has vanished (despite being GPL), there's not much in
terms of database tools (that don't require programming) in the FOSS
world. Kexi isn't available anywhere else than on Linux and it's
missing critical functionality (e.g. support for composite keys).

Hi Wolfgang and all,
I am Kexi maintainer. Nice to meet you and it will be exciting to deliver
the missing functionality that's critical to you. Please don't hesitate to
it discuss further
- on the forums:
https://forum.kde.org/kexi
- or within the mailing list https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kexi.

As for the native Windows and Mac versions, they are in development now with
a deadline in Q2 2015. The delay is related to the fact that we're heading
to a highly modern Qt 5 version that enables a version for mobile devices.

Thanks!