Re: which dbms?

"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave <deepthinkernospam@
> btinternet.com> writes
> >Hi
> >
> >I have been asked to implement an error logging/management database for the
> >network technicians in our company. The idea is that staff using
> >workstations can enter a database and log any problems they are having,
> >while the technicians can pull off details of faulty equipment. The users
> >will have little experience of databases so the system needs to be
> >customized to allow users access to facilities via simple a gui. The network
> >is  win98 based.
> >
> >Currently the company does not have a dbms. My initial reaction is to do it
> >using MS Access as this is a database that I am familiar with. However, with
> >so many databases systems out there, I was wondering what dbms others would
> >choose and what advantages/disadvantes it would have.
> >
> Well, Access isn't a bad database,

It's a pile of shit.

 just as long as you remember it's a
> toy. And it's a great RAD tool.
> 
> Get a copy of linux, and older pc, and play. You've got MySQL,
> PostgreSQL, and I think many versions also come with DB2, SapDB, and
> possibly more.
> 
> Oh - and having posted this to comp.databases.revelation, why not try
> and get a copy of OpenInsight

That's a pile of shit too and more than a waste of time.
It's too expensive and it'll drive your project into the ground.
Anything as flexible as advanced revelation was just won't adapt to
windows.

If you really want to do anything quickly efficiently and cheaply just
get a copy of qt and use some form of sql on linux.

 and then ask here for help. It's not a
> relational db, but those of us who know multi-value dbs would say they
> knock relational into a cocked hat :-)

you can impose multivalues onto any relational database

> 
> Cheers,
> Wol