--- In IBObjects@yahoogroups.com, Helen Borrie <helebor@t...> wrote:

> At 05:04 AM 20/03/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
> >I don't see using a 2-tier application over a ADSL line as an
> >absurd. I don't use it for production environments. Sometimes the
> >central office needs to see some reports or make minor operations

in

> >a filial server, for example. It's cheaper than replication or

other

> >solutions, as you can use the same application to do the job.
>
> Fabiano, I think it's absurd. If that is all you need it for, you

don't

> even need 3-tier. Shall I tell you how I do the queries I get

from you

> guys about your IBO community accounts?
>
> Here in NSW, Australia, I have Symantec PCAnywhere, which cost me

$125

> AUD. It comes with a server and a client. I run the client here

on an

> as-required basis. In Mesa, Arizona (a 15-hour plane trip from

here) Jason

> has a server containing all of your accounts in a very large

database and

> an IIS Web server running his web application, built with IBO,

Indy and a

> Firebird back-end, ll running on the same box.
>
> I connect to this "back-end" machine from here, via PCA. Once

connected,

> I'm looking at the desktop of Jason's server. I start up IB_SQL

and go to

> the Query Forms tab, where I have a few queries I use several

times a day

> to answer your questions. It could be any IBO application: it

just

> happens to be IB_SQL. It is as fast as your desktop machine. If

I want to

> (or if there was an application that did it for me) I could run a

report

> and output it to a file. I could then use the File Transfer tool

to

> transfer it directly, or I could email it to myself.
>
> David Johnson's "sneaker-net" is out of the question for our

situation, as

> I suppose it must be for your very remote users.
>
> I'm on a peer-gain dialup link here: 22 Kbps if I'm lucky.

There's no

> ADSL where I am. The only part of this whole operation that is

slow for me

> is that Jason has a big 22" monitor at high resolution, whereas I

have a

> 17" one at 1024 X 768. I have to move around the desktop a lot

with the

> scrollbars just to find things and those screen repaints sometimes

take

> time and considerable frustration.
>
> On another system I manage with VNC, at a co-lo in N. California,

the

> screen resolutions are the same as here, so there is no "repaint-

lag". And

> VNC, by the way, is platform-neutral and FREE. You can be running

a

> console or X application on a Linux server in Timbuktoo from your

Windows

> notebook on a beach somewhere in Brazil. You can have multiple

hosts on

> the desktop simultaneously. And it is cheap-cheap-cheap. No ADSL

fees,

> software upgrades are free.
>
> This is 2-tier client-server, yet it's a fine solution for me to

run small

> jobs from a great distance. I would regard your arrangement as

totally

> absurd for me.
>
> Virtual networking is a mature science and it's been around a long
> time. Nearly 20 years ago I was using X11 dialup to System38

servers from

> clunky old original IBM XTs (twin-floppy, HDDs were yet to be

invented,

> state-of-the-art in 1984) all around New Zealand, to give remote

users the

> ability to do pretty much the same thing as you're doing.

Connection time

> is the hangup with X11 (which is all but dead now) but, once

you're in,

> you're laughing.
>
> Helen

I'm really surprised. I thought that you, people specially engaged
in developing technologic tools, used these tools and all the
possibilities they can offer plenty.

Maybe your solution is the the faster or the cheaper in your case,
but you have to admit it's VERY UGLY. I'd prefer a simple
application writen in Delphi acessing Jason's database server
directly. You, Helen, engaged so much in Firebird and IBObjects
development using PC Anywhere to access a remote database server is
a big deception to me.

Tell me if IBObjects have about 20 "Helen's" there. They will have
to program a schedule to access Jason's machine? Or you will need 20
machines, or you will use Windows Terminal Server (argh!). Imagine
if some of these "Helen's" was not trustfull enough to Jason give
her a direct access to his terminal... A simple client application
should do the trick...

Now i see why none of firebird developers is engaged in the
improvement of the protocol, task already assigned in the wishes
list. Because nobody uses it. Maybe just me ??? :-(((((

Just for curiosity, M$SQL protocol permit client applications to
access servers over 22k modem lines almost as good as if you were in
the local network.

But i feel we are entering in the 'personal choices' space, and it's
hard to discuss this. This could lead to long and useless
discussions like that betweem Jim and Nickolay at Firebird
Developers ;-)

Fabiano.