At 12:51 PM 15/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:

> > 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?
> >
>
>Well, yes, I do like my orange-apple twist every now and then! I realize
>the difference between the client-server and the embedded server use
>cases. However, as an example, in our office everybody has a "P" drive
>on their workstation which is stored on the file server.

Yeah, well you have to teach these people that client/server databases
don't belong on file servers. If they want "fileserver", let them eat Access.

>Their natural
>inclination is to install new software onto there, and to store their
>"Data Files" on there, so they get backed up.

Erm, well, don't let their backup routine back up the database. It will
corrupt it if anyone is connected.

>When embedded server won't access a file on this disk, they get
>confused. They're not trying to have multiple people accessing the same
>database, they're just running out of a network drive. 99% of regular
>applications will run in this scenario.

And network drives are just beaut for fileserver applications.

>Anyway, it's not a big deal, but in interests of consistency with the
>single user model, it seems to me that the embedded server should be
>able to work more like a desktop database, and allow database files to
>be stored anywhere.

Well, I somehow doubt there will be much enthusiasm for making Firebird
over as a fileserver dbms.

Gotta goto bed. Yikes.

Enjoy your orange juice.

heLen