Re: VFP Updates?

Juan,
Yes you can agree to disagree that's OK. If you run your program in a closed
environment were all users adhere to your principles what you say is just
great.
Now take for example you have users that are running your applications over
the years and you have advanced your app from DOS through VFP8. Even say you
did not use containers but have kept the old dbf tables. They are not
computer people but just users of your program and most have never advanced
to VISA which to most of them is an ugly word. Now in order to get them
advanced to your way of doing things I have to run a school or some way to
get them updated. That is not going to happen. They want to use their app
like they have been for years and if you change anything it has to be
seamless to them. I am sure MS has run into this, that's why they keep the
register. Try talking ODBC or OleDb and they say HU. OLE to them is a
Bullfighter word.
I have to agree with you if you have computer people running computer
programs it would be nice to be a purist but that is not my case. I have to
make up my apps so that what ever they want to run has to be from a command
button. If you want a report to run a list of people, I need a command that
says "REPORT FOR MEMBERSHIP" If they want a list of mailing labels I need a
command that says "MAILING LIST BY LAST NAME" and "MAILING LIST BY ZIP CODE"
and "MAILING LIST BY FIRST NAME" and "MAILING LIST BY STATES". To non
computer people that only want to run their business and not learn how to
program each thing they want you need to spoon feed them. SQL to them means
nothing. They could not put together any command to do very much. That does
not mean they are dumb as they do things that I could never do. Some of them
are Lawyers, Attorneys, Private Investigators, Cooks, and Doctors and all
they want the computers to do is document what they are doing. Leave it to
others to make up the reports the way they want them.
Enough on this, but yes you are correct to do things the way say if you are
working with computer literate people but the whole world is not computer
literate; yet.
Tony

"Juan Alonso" <jacinc2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23MO36Is4JHA.5276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sory..BUT I AGREE TO DISAGREE..

If you are using GROUP POLICIES there is no way no one will delete any
table.

If you are using ODBC or OleDB your rights polocies are even easier to
setup.

You don't have to put data in a shared folder anymore.

You can use either of the mentioned above to contorl the data access.

I use both with either ADO or Passthrough Tech. and I don't have that
problem with my users.

And you don't even have to use SQL if you don't want to. Just the command
sets.

VFP don't care about the SQL engine running. It only creates the
connection through your specified way and access the tables with the
command sets you use.

Like I said. MS still kiks *** and GROUP POLICIES and OTHER ACCESS
CONTROL TOOLS are the best thing they ever created. You can seperate any
kind of connection and assign it the right to do exactly what you want.

There are so many options for Administrating Access Control in Microsoft
Servers it ain't even funny.

Only a fool would give users that much access. I don't even give the vice
president that much access...LOL..

None the less a regular user. About 20 or 25 years ago, you had no choice
but to work that way with The FOX, but now.. no way.. it is way cool that
we don't have to be so open with data access.

And if you don't use ODBC or OLeDB to protect your ass .. then hey if a
user did delete your table.. its your ASS.. bottom line.!!

There are even access policies you can setup for just the software if you
don't want to give the user control.

In fact.. I beleive if you try this it will work also.. I haven't done
it.. but Im sure it will.

Create a user with just USER rights... and give your Application Only
read/write rights through Group Polocies and Im sure it can be done
directly without the ODBC or OLeDB connection..

I use it because I do use other connections in my App but haven't tryed
the above yet.. but Im sure it works..

Juan.


"Stefan Wuebbe" <stefan.wuebbe@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O8wxw%23J4JHA.5048@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Juan Alonso" <jacinc2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ei0$8XG4JHA.3860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stefan, any data can be compromised, if someone gets to it, shared or
not!

Yes, but the difference is that the standard way to access a
Client/Server
back-end is to use an ODBC or OleDB connection that can grant privileges
in a scalable way - certain users may or may not be allowed to read or
write certain data, and will usually do that through the your.EXE
interface,
and certainly none of them will get rights to drop tables.

While the standard way to access native Fox tables is to share the
"Data" folder in a LAN, which means complete read and write NTFS
privileges for all your.exe users, independent of their privileges that
your.exe may or may not give each them. So if there is only one
destructive
guy among a few hundred users, he would be able to delete all files in
the
shared folder via Explorer.


-Stefan



--
|\_/| ------ ProLib - programmers liberty -----------------
(.. ) Our MVPs and MCPs make the Fox run....
- / See us at www.prolib.de or www.AFPages.de
-----------------------------------------------------------




.