MS Access 'equiv' for Linux 3295

Al. C schrieb: It wouldn't. People buy MS-Access because the know nothing different (better). That's the only way Microsoft's business works: "Let them pirate MS-Windows, we'll get enough money from OEM business." and "This office package is all software you ever need for your business."

A company developing a MS-Access clone for Linux doesn't get the revenues from OEM business and could hardly survive from a few thousand boxes of "XYZ-Access" a year. So this company needs a bigger product - there you go with Oracle or Interbase.

The is no place in Linux software market for $99 products. Either it costs thousands of dollars, and is worth the money, or it is erased from market very quickly by free (beer) software, which is as nearly as complete as the thousands-of-dollars software.

There is no need for a medium-priced, limited-ability software like MS-Access when you can always get the fit-for-nearly-all one for free.

I don't see how a database helps me making money. This is basically bureaucracy, which burns all the money the company earns. Often, it is wiser not to collect any data, as more data is collected, more people are involved into managing it.

I can hardly see any case MS-Access could become "Mission critical", that means: is directly generating revenue. You yourself denied that in a previous posting, too.

So the choice of a database is nothing a manager would be interested in, and that's another reason MS-Access exists. It just came with the office package, and company people use it because of the lack of any decent database software.

No. They buy whatever you offer to them. The best liar wins. Not so much time before there was a saying: "You cannot be fired for buying IBM (hardware).", which enabled IBM to sell average hardware for first-clbutt prices. Same goes for HP and Compaq. And even for Microsoft, although their software was far from being average since their beginning with MS-DOS 1.0.

MS-Windows doesn't get you any revenue, and Office automation doesn't either. You could do all your paperwork with paper - yes, they even sell pencils in our days - and still run your business. The computer thing was only set up to show how modern the managers and the company are. The same goes e.g. for the internet - it's just machism.

Photoshop is different, because it really makes a *production* process faster - that's why it's generating more revenue. Before Photoshop, you had to go to the darkroom, cut photos by hand, without undo - that's a *production* process.

Engineering applications are the same. Anyone here who know how complicated drawings were to create before CAD?

The question just makes no sense. Why change from MS-Windows to Linux, if everything should be the same?

I doubt. If they were really intelligent business people, they would try the "embrace and own" strategy on Linux like the did with any other compebreastor before - that means, creating a Linux distribution that is purely MS.

But instead, they tried everything, even the most hilarious ideas, like to accuse hundreds of programmers all over the world to be involed into a conspiracy to copy code 1:1 from AIX. Hilarious!

They are just firing all they have left, any ideas were fired long time ago. -- Jan