Re: 8.1.6 on windows 2000, no odbc?

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:9lt51m$780$1_at_ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> Now before I get flamed for that statement by some clueless idiot (yeah,
in a
> cranky mood, so what else is new), ODBC is simply an application INTERFACE
to a
> native database driver. In itself, it has NOTHING to do with the database
> server.

True
<snip>
> My guess is number c. Although d is also very valid. And yeah, I know c is
not a
> number, but then neither is ODBC a bright idea either. So just back off.

Now you can argue that ODBC is poorly implemented, buggy and about the outrageous use of the word OPEN in the name. However It seems to me that an API for calls to diverse datasources is an excellent idea. Equally if ODBC is a bad idea so too presumably is JDBC (and even SQL)

<snip>
> And there you should have ODBC working. Not that ODBC ever really works
> properly, irrespective of what the MS Marketing Warfare Machine and their
> followers say.

Like most MS Stuff ODBC works pretty well most of the time in most cases. It may not be bulletproof ultra reliable and highly scalable (!) but that isn't probably a problem for 98% of the database apps out there. (And for the purposes of this comment I don't count access as a database). Good enough will do.

Off now; that freshly filtered caffeine is calling!

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK