Hello,

I am tasked with converting an MsAccess db to a MySQL 4 db in a Linux
environment. Can anyone recommend any good freeware/scripts to help me
do this?

Thanks in advance, - Dave

On 30 Jan 2006 20:38:25 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I am tasked with converting an MsAccess db to a MySQL 4 db in a Linux
>environment. Can anyone recommend any good freeware/scripts to help me
>do this?
>
>Thanks in advance, - Dave

You can migrate the data, but since Access will not run on Linux,
you'll have to recreate all the forms, reports, etc. in some other
medium.

If the Linux box and the box now running Access are mutually
accessible on the network, you can obtain the MySQL ODBC Driver from
MySQL's website. You can do it a variety of ways, but I'd suggest
creating the tables in MySQL, linking to them from Access, and running
Append queries to migrate the data.

John W. Vinson[MVP]

or uh.. if you had a real tool-- like sql server-- using DTS to do this
would be quite easy

linked tables aren't reliable enough for a single record

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>linked tables aren't reliable enough for a single record

Why?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

uh because they crap out and make you reboot file servers

linked tables don't work reliably. they cause locking problems against
SQL Server for example. and they're the most inefficient way to do
anything in the whole wide world

linked tables are crappy because they scan the whole table locally..
right?

or at least they used to?

i just think that mdb is crapppy and i've got years and years of
experience where MDB has let me down.

i've touched thousands of mdb apps over the past 7 years.

and i've never had a single customer that can use it reliably... i
mean-- how many times do we need to reboot file servers?

how many times do we need to re-write queries just because access
throws a tiff??

it's just an immature technology and microsoft has abandoned it for the
past decade. you can't just slap a new sticker on it; and expect it to
work.. you can't expect me to buy off on mdbs-- and then you make all
these excuses; yeah but you can't use wirless networking.. yeah; you
shoudn't build queries on top of queries

mdb is just a crap database and you guys are living a pipe dream

sorry

i just am sick and tired of using it; im sick and tired of hearing
about performance problems-- im sick and tired of waiting 2 minutes for
an app to open up; so that some magic 'front end updater' can run
around and rebuild my queries and tables.. refresh; relink-- i've had
enough; it's just a crappy technology.

since you guys are too lame to learn TSQL; i need to help you guys to
see the light

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>uh because they crap out and make you reboot file servers

Rubbish. There has been one posting recently along this line. I've
never seen this at my clients.

>linked tables don't work reliably. they cause locking problems against
>SQL Server for example. and they're the most inefficient way to do
>anything in the whole wide world

News to me.

>linked tables are crappy because they scan the whole table locally..
>right?

No. Absolutely not.

>or at least they used to?

Maybe in A1.0.

>i just think that mdb is crapppy and i've got years and years of
>experience where MDB has let me down.

<stuff snipped>

Your experience is different than the rest of us.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

nope. Linked tables are too unreliable for real-world use.

i mean--- linking to SQL 2000 just isn't reliable enough.. That's why i
refuse to use your piece of **** database format-- because it's not
reliable enough.

linking tables to other MDB tables ins't reliable enough.


only SQL Server; MSDE-- is reliable enough

it's not rubbish; it's what i've seen from working on hundreds, if not
thousands of access applications over the past 7 years.

****.. yes-- i have had a half-dozen clients with more than 100 access
databases.

MDB doesn't cut the cheese and it's time that you guys STFU and grow
up.

MDB isn't reliable enough for a single record ever and you guys are
wimps for still using MDB. Learn TSQL; it is 100 times more powerful.





Tony Toews wrote:
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >uh because they crap out and make you reboot file servers
>
> Rubbish. There has been one posting recently along this line. I've
> never seen this at my clients.
>
> >linked tables don't work reliably. they cause locking problems against
> >SQL Server for example. and they're the most inefficient way to do
> >anything in the whole wide world
>
> News to me.
>
> >linked tables are crappy because they scan the whole table locally..
> >right?
>
> No. Absolutely not.
>
> >or at least they used to?
>
> Maybe in A1.0.
>
> >i just think that mdb is crapppy and i've got years and years of
> >experience where MDB has let me down.
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> Your experience is different than the rest of us.
>
> Tony
> --
> Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
> Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
> read the entire thread of messages.
> Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
> http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm