Uri Even-Chen wrote: > Dear Linux people, > > First, I want to apologize if any of you were offended or harassed by > the messages I sent to this list about 3 months ago. No problem. > and a server for > Microsoft Access. The Access program will be executed by a few users > simultaneously. Is it a requirement that it be "Access", or should it be "a database server"?
If it really has to be Access, then Windows SBS 2003 IS, probably, the best solution. I should mention that Access is a pretty crappy excuse for a database, even by Microsoft's standards, and that SBS usually comes bundled with MS SQL licenses. Then again, if you CAN switch databases, then a Linux based database can be a replacement, and we can raise the question yet again. When talking databases, I usually prefer Postgresql, but, and this point cannot be stressed enough, ANYTHING is better than Access. > My father asked an expert from a company we work with, and the expert > recommended to use a Microsoft server (Windows 2003). I would like to > know if you think that a Linux server is better. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
