At 11:24 AM 15/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:

> >
>
>Thanks for clearing this up. I thought I remembered seeing something on
>a mailing list indicating that the behavior for SMB and NFS was the same
>WRT local/remote access.

It is. Someone did some stuff to allow *reading* an NFS drive but it
wasn't a good move. The release notes strongly recommend against it and
the firebird.conf could be stronger about it, too.

SMB, definitely not.

>It seems to me as if the filesystem abstraction
>should allow it to work.

It's not a question of "filesystem abstraction". This is not a file-based
desktop dbms. A database is a "filesystem within a filesystem". The
server uses low-level protocols to request drive space from the the CPU.

>In interests of causing trouble, is it likely that this behavior could
>be changed to match the behavior under *nix?

God help us!!

>I think a lot of us using
>the embedded server would prefer to be able to use any file accessible
>by windows. Think of an "personal address book" application running off
>somebody's "personal drive" on a server. Its VERY confusing for users
>when an application works on a local disk and doesn't work on a network
>disk.

Then don't use embedded server!! It's designed for one user on one
machine, not for network use.

>I realize this is not the way its "supposed" to be, but the environment
>an embedded db app runs is often very unfriendly to installing a
>seperate server application.

I don't understand this. Either you have one user on one machine all alone
on a mountain-top using embedded server or you have multiple users on a
client/server network. You want orange juice out of an apple?

heLen