Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
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 :)

On 6 August 2014 15:44, Paul D. Mirowsky <> wrote:

So, what appears to be happening is consensus that other database
back-ends should be used.

What is implied, is that Base does not have the ability to generate from a
package, the selected external database of choice.

1. Is this correct?
2. Should it be corrected?
3. When generated, should 'internal' mean in the same folder, 'external'
mean somewhere else?


On 8/4/2014 10:36 AM, Wolfgang Keller wrote:

Average end-user is challenged enough just installing an O/S and
productivity suite, and learning how to use them, much less a real

PostgreSQL is pretty foolproof to install and use. I know what I am
talking about since I am the reference fool.

It may be something different if you need to maintain it for running a
huge database that gets a serious load of queries and transactions and
needs to be fault-tolerant, accessible from the "public" Internet etc.
But for "home" or "small business" use cases it's really simple.

 Plus: MS Office (Pro) has one, so LibréOffice and relatives
have to have one.

Access is a dangerous heap of junk.
  I know of Access users who get their database corrupted roughly every
four weeks on average.

 Yes: Such tools should never, ever be used for anything very

Base looks and feels like a perfectly credible "CRUD" and
reporting frontend for a database. It's just the choice of an embedded
database for storage that's a mistery for me.

At best, it's useless to include HSQL. At worst, it might discredit LO
as a whole.



To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.