<xhoster_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20050104150306.505$pd_at_newsreader.com...
> "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
>> news:41d39030$0$5287$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > premmehrotra_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> I have a Windows 2000 Professional on my desktop. I want to
>> >> use ODBC to connect Microsoft Access to a Oracle backend. Oracle
>> >> database is on a HP UNIX Server and 9.2.0.5.
>> >>
>> >> My question is do I require any installation of Oracle,
>> >
>> > Yes, you do. You need the full-blown Oracle client installation.
>> > Whether you can get away with the 'lite' 10g client, I wouldn't know.
>>
>> assuming you mean the 'Instant Client' then yes you can. I would imagine
>> it is exactly this sort of request that inspired the 'Instant Client'.
>> For some reason it seems popular among windows users to imagine that they
>> can connect to a database without client software.
>
> Well, the idea is popular among non-Windows users, as well. I thought
> ODBC
> was supposed to be a standard, in which case why should I have to install
> a
> different client for each DB type? Other than for failover support, I see
> no fundamental reason to require different ODBC drivers on the client
> machines.
Well JDBC is a standard as well, so why should one have to install any more
than one JDBC driver on any given machine to access any data that anyone has
yet thought of? Going down the stack why should I require different protocol
stacks for different networks - ethernet cabling is a standard after all..
Going up it why should I learn PL/SQL or T-SQL etc SQL is a standard as
well.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
Received on Tue Jan 04 2005 - 15:08:24 CST
