SharePoint

[Chip]

Hey Everyone,

I know this isnt a SharePoint, but I wasnt able to find a group that
was acive enough for me to get a relatively quick answer. And I'm a
bit under the gun. So here goes,

We have SharePoint 3.0 installed on our server. I am feverishly
working now to deploy multiple solutions for my company. However, as
I'm not an IT person, I'm not sure I'm being told the whole truth
here. I have full access privledges to my site, but I dont have
access to the Central Administration, since this is on the server and
our (outsourced) IT person is the only person who accesses it.

I tried to do a relatively simple demonstration of how one can be
notified of a change in a SharePoint site. But when I go the part
where it says to set the alert, it tells me that my SharePoint site is
not configured to send email. Needless to say, I was a bit upset,
first becaue my demonstration wouldnt work, and also because if it
cant do a simple task like this, what other features of SharePoint are
not enabled...

So I dropped a line to my IT person. It would seem to me that to
configure SharePoint to send an email would be relatively easy
process. My IT person responded back (in a not so friendly tone),
that configurng SharePoint to send email is "no trivial matter" and
"constitutes a significant ujpgrade that would need budgetary
approval." So I'm wondering. Is there is anyone out there that could
verify his wording for me?. Since SharePoint 3.0 is a standard
feature in a Windows Server, it didn't sit well with me that is would
be such a big undertaking. I cant help but believe that my IT person
is simply trying to gain a billable service

Any opinions?

Chip

 

[David W. Fenton]

:

I know this isnt a SharePoint [group]

I'm very interested in what SharePoint might be useful for, but it
seems to me that professional Access developers have basically not
adopted SharePoint for anything. It seems to me that it's mostly
being used by advanced users, rather than by developers. This is
because, in my opinion, it doesn't offer much that the professional
developer needs. Also, developers are likely to want to avoid
dependencies on components that not all their clients have. For
instance, most of my client base is small businesses with a few PCs
and no server. In that case, SharePoint is not usable at all. For
the other clients who have servers, they don't need SharePoint as
they're already running SQL Server as a back end, or they are just
fine with a shared Jet back end.

I was hoping when A2K7 came out with such strong ties to Sharepoint
that Access developers would start using it, and we'd find out what
it was good for.

So far, that doesn't seem to have happened.

 

[David W. Fenton]

:

It would seem to me that to
configure SharePoint to send an email would be relatively easy
process. My IT person responded back (in a not so friendly tone),
that configurng SharePoint to send email is "no trivial matter"
and "constitutes a significant ujpgrade that would need budgetary
approval."

Well, configuring any server to send email is a major security risk,
so has to be done carefully. I don't know anything about how
SharePoint integrates with email (whether Exchange or not), but I
would expect for security purposes it would *not* be configured for
email by default. If it's running on a box that also hosts Exchange,
it might be turned on (e.g., Small Business Server), but if it's on
a different server, it should likely be turned off.

I think you are not really being fair to your IT person -- it may
not be complicated to turn on email support, but doing so has
significant ramifications for safety and security and shouldn't be
done lightly.

 

[Chip]

Thank you David for your input.. As a person who is not a
professional developer, I can see your point, where a Professional
developer would be somewhat skeptical or doubting about what
SharePoint can do. Any prorgram or tool that promises to improve your
efficency "out of the box" makes me a bit skeptical. However, the
simplicity of what it promises is tempting.

As a middle manager, whose main role is developing new and more
efficient ways for my office to share information, SharePoint offers
an attractive interface, which from what I can see, will improve
efficiency. What is difficult is that unlike the core MS Office
programs, which almost seemlessly integrate, SharePoint seems to have
a different thought process behind it. My biggest task, which I have
mentioned here before, is to get my Access databases to work both
within our office network, but also in the field, via a broadban
connection. When Data Access pages were around, it was easier to
implement that. Now that DAP's are gone, as I can see I'm forced into
using SharePoint. I need to be able to provide instant access to
performance data via a Dashboard, but also need the ability to read
and write to database tables.

I have given some thought and I think he may have been having a bad
day. So I will cut him some slack. We are a small company with only
15 employees and so cannot aford our own IT person, so we contract it
out. So each time you call, a service request is made and I have to
be careful, because he bills for everything. Thanks!!

chip

 

[David W. Fenton]

m:

As a middle manager, whose main role is developing new and more
efficient ways for my office to share information, SharePoint
offers an attractive interface, which from what I can see, will
improve efficiency. What is difficult is that unlike the core MS
Office programs, which almost seemlessly integrate, SharePoint
seems to have a different thought process behind it. My biggest
task, which I have mentioned here before, is to get my Access
databases to work both within our office network, but also in the
field, via a broadban connection. When Data Access pages were
around, it was easier to implement that. Now that DAP's are gone,
as I can see I'm forced into using SharePoint.

Seems to me that if SharePoint is an option, then running the apps
on Windows Terminal Server is also an option. And it's a much better
option, in my opinion, as it doesn't require any alterations to your
Access app.

Is there some reason you've disregarded WTS as an option?

I need to be able to provide instant access to
performance data via a Dashboard, but also need the ability to
read and write to database tables.

I have given some thought and I think he may have been having a
bad day. So I will cut him some slack. We are a small company
with only 15 employees and so cannot aford our own IT person, so
we contract it out. So each time you call, a service request is
made and I have to be careful, because he bills for everything.
Thanks!!

I make my living doing that, too, and I *have* to bill for
everything. Otherwise, I get swamped with trivialities.

From where I sit, your IT guy was doing his job. You may very well
have a compelling reason for the email configuration change you
requested, but he's doing his job as sysadmin in resisting any
changes to a reliable configuration. It really is his job to say no
until the business case is compelling enough to justify a change
that can destabilize a functional server.

 

[Mark Andrews]

I came from a company that used Sharepoint a good deal (2003 and 2007). I
would say Sharepoint
is primarily used by mid size companies looking for a good way to replace
some of their Intranet or possibly extranet websites.
It is good in that regular users tend to drive the growth and use of the
product.

Some web developers tie into WSS so they don't have to write the product
themselves and since WSS is free with the operating system they can leverge
that.
Some developers also make products for sharepoint.

As far as just using Sharepoint as tables for Access or intermingling both
products I would tend to agree that it has not taken off.
Most web development tends to be all on the web and when Access development
starts edging towards getting more and more on the web
it usually shifts to web development (asp.net, sharepoint or other
technologies)

Sharepoint does drive ideas at companies for new development (regular user
starts to track all their ____ data on their sharepoint site and a developer
notices that this would be much better if someone make a real database
application (Access or SQL Server/web development).

Down the road the two product might mix a bit more.

Also I don't think the majority of Access developers have switched to
Access2007 so that could be playing a part.

My two cents,
Mark Andrews
RPT Software
http://www.rptsoftware.com

:

I know this isnt a SharePoint [group]

I'm very interested in what SharePoint might be useful for, but it
seems to me that professional Access developers have basically not
adopted SharePoint for anything. It seems to me that it's mostly
being used by advanced users, rather than by developers. This is
because, in my opinion, it doesn't offer much that the professional
developer needs. Also, developers are likely to want to avoid
dependencies on components that not all their clients have. For
instance, most of my client base is small businesses with a few PCs
and no server. In that case, SharePoint is not usable at all. For
the other clients who have servers, they don't need SharePoint as
they're already running SQL Server as a back end, or they are just
fine with a shared Jet back end.

I was hoping when A2K7 came out with such strong ties to Sharepoint
that Access developers would start using it, and we'd find out what
it was good for.

So far, that doesn't seem to have happened.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Sharepoint linked tables in Access 2003 were absolutely _DOG_SLOW_ so
they lost their chance to shove it down our throats

Maybe, instead of trying to deliver solutions on Jet-- maybe jet is
the problem.
Move to SQL Server, and your databases can work over wireless, Wan,
Vpn, etc-

Terminal Services is a major waste of time and money-- it doesn't help
people to copy and paste from their desktop into Access-- it makes you
recreate the wheel ad-infinitum.

Moving to a real database-- and keeping your existing forms and
reports-- is a great choice.

I reccomend that you upsize to SQL Server and Access Data Projects if
you want things to 'just work'.

Jet isn't reliable enough for any developers to deliver reliable
solutions for a handful of users.
Jet might have been peachy a decade ago-- but because it hasn't been
reliable; because it hasnt' gotten rid of stability problems and
reliability _BUGS_ Jet is still roadkill on the information
superhighway.

I came from a company that used Sharepoint a good deal (2003 and 2007).  I
would say Sharepoint
is primarily used by mid size companies looking for a good way to replace
some of their Intranet or possibly extranet websites.
It is good in that regular users tend to drive the growth and use of the
product.

Some web developers tie into WSS so they don't have to write the product
themselves and since WSS is free with the operating system they can leverge
that.
Some developers also make products for sharepoint.

As far as just using Sharepoint as tables for Access or intermingling both
products I would tend to agree that it has not taken off.
Most web development tends to be all on the web and when Access development
starts edging towards getting more and more on the web
it usually shifts to web development (asp.net, sharepoint or other
technologies)

Sharepoint does drive ideas at companies for new development (regular user
starts to track all their ____ data on their sharepoint site and a developer
notices that this would be much better if someone make a real database
application (Access or SQL Server/web development).

Down the road the two product might mix a bit more.

Also I don't think the majority of Access developers have switched to
Access2007 so that could be playing a part.

My two cents,
Mark Andrews
RPT Softwarehttp://www.rptsoftware.com

:

I know this isnt a SharePoint [group]

I'm very interested in what SharePoint might be useful for, but it
seems to me that professional Access developers have basically not
adopted SharePoint for anything. It seems to me that it's mostly
being used by advanced users, rather than by developers. This is
because, in my opinion, it doesn't offer much that the professional
developer needs. Also, developers are likely to want to avoid
dependencies on components that not all their clients have. For
instance, most of my client base is small businesses with a few PCs
and no server. In that case, SharePoint is not usable at all. For
the other clients who have servers, they don't need SharePoint as
they're already running SQL Server as a back end, or they are just
fine with a shared Jet back end.

I was hoping when A2K7 came out with such strong ties to Sharepoint
that Access developers would start using it, and we'd find out what
it was good for.

So far, that doesn't seem to have happened.

 

[David W. Fenton]

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
m:

[nothing worth reading]

Do you know *anything* at all about *anything*, Aaron?

Wow. What a pile of steaming crap you just posted.

Amazing.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

what exactly are you talking about, dude?

I'm just saying that SharePoint linked tables fucking suck because
they're _DOG_SLOW_.

Maybe if Microsoft wanted us all to move everything to sharePoint;
maybe they should have created something with acceptable performance.
Of course-- all linked tables run like crap, so maybe it's a jet
problem, not a sharePoint problem.

-aaron

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

Terminal Services is a major waste of time and money-- it doesn't
help
people to copy and paste from their desktop into Access-- it makes
you
recreate the wheel ad-infinitum.

Jet isn't reliable enough for any developers to deliver reliable
solutions for a handful of users.
Jet might have been peachy a decade ago-- but because it hasn't been
reliable; because it hasnt' gotten rid of stability problems and
reliability _BUGS_ Jet is still roadkill on the information
superhighway.

 

[David W. Fenton]

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
m:

[once again, nothing worth reading]

Give up, Aaron. You've demonstrated that our brain is incapable of
producing anything that makes any sense. You only embarrass yourself
every time you post.

 

[David W. Fenton]

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
:

[still more tripe not worth reading]

Give it up, Aaron. Stop posting. Everyone is laughing at you, as
they should be.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

You're the crybaby using an obsolete database.. and you claim that
they're laughing at me?

Dipshits like you are why they removed ULS and Replication from Access
2007 (format)

-Aaron

 

[David W. Fenton]

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
m:

Dipshits like you are why they removed ULS and Replication from
Access 2007 (format)

You mean the people who understood how to use ULS and Replication
are the ones that caused MS to remove it in the ACE?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Aaron, just like all the other
comical garbage you post.

Get medical help, Aaron.

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

why don't you go and play with ULS and Replication for access 97, kid.

ULS and Replication was removed from Access 2007 (format) for a
reason-- SQL Server has won the war.
Anyone wanting to implement security or replication is forced to use
SQL Server.

I don't see any other way to describe it -- other than 'you should
have moved to SQL Server a decade ago'.

-Aaron

 

[David W. Fenton]

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <[email protected]>
wrote in
m:

[once again, nothing worth reading]

Aaron, if you're going to post, can you at least say something
absurd or amusing?

Thanks!

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

go play with your baby sized database, crybaby

so sorry that they removed your 2 favorite features from Access 2007
(format)

 

[George Hepworth]

Dude, to what does Access 2007 (format) refer?
Do you know the real name of the file format used by Access 2007, or are you
just trying to obscure the import of your comments?


message
go play with your baby sized database, crybaby

so sorry that they removed your 2 favorite features from Access 2007
(format)

 

[David W. Fenton]

Dude, to what does Access 2007 (format) refer?
Do you know the real name of the file format used by Access 2007,
or are you just trying to obscure the import of your comments?

He learned that his earlier statements that A2K7 does not support
ULS and replication would get him castigated for telling lies. So,
he's put in some weasel words to get him out of that accusation.
He's still making the same assertion, that ULS and replication are
deprecated (even though they are fully supported), and the reason
why he comes out with weird locutions is because he's just lying
again.

If Aaron Kempf is posting, he's lying -- don't believe anything he
posts, even "and" and "the".

 

[a a r o n . k e m p f]

David;

It's funny-- I'm the only one in this group that CONSISTENTLY and
ACCURATELY SPEAKS THE TRUTH.

ULS and Replication are not available in Access 2007.
If you need security, networking (WAN, VPN, Wireless) or any sort of
replication; you are forced to move to SQL Server.
If you need security, networking (WAN, VPN, Wireless) or any sort of
replication; you are forced to move to SQL Server.

-Aaron