db shared is read only!

[rew]

Hi, i've a problem

there's a database in a shared folder (two pc connected NOT in a LAN).
the database is on the pc called "A", i'm in the other (called "B") ; i open the db and i've a message "read only". so i cannot enter, modify, ...
how can i give to the pc "B" the possibilty to modifiy the db??

thx in advance

bye

 

[RuralGuy]

It sounds like an operating system issue. PC "B" needs complete authority on PC "A". Read, write, create, modify and delete rights.

 

[KeithG]

I believe RuralGuy is correct, your user needs full priveliges on the shared folder. Ms Access can not create the .ldb file and as a result the database is opened as Read Only.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Question: are A and B connected via DOMAIN - or via WORKGROUP and a simple SHARE declaration? Makes a BIG difference.

If via a DOMAIN, you need to grant the B computer an account in the domain because both the computer and the user have domain account entries.

If via a simple WORKGROUP and SHARE setup, you need to set FULL rights on the SHARE to the user implied by logging on to B. Look up / Google "Windows File Sharing" to see how to define a Share for the folder and files you want to share. Using this method, you don't have a lot of granularity of control, it is like NO access, READ access, or FULL access.

WARNING: Using the WORKGROUP/SHARE FULL access setting, if you are on the internet, your files are exposed if your machine ever gets hacked. Which is why Windows sets up domains these days. But of course you need Win2k Server or higher to have a domain setup. Which is why WORKGROUP SHARE still exists.

 

[MrsGorilla]

Sounds to me from the post that the two PC's are not on a network but are connected either through a direct connection or via a simple hub, which would be the Workgroup and File Share setup that you mentioned Doc Man. It still sounds like it could be a permission problem either way though. That would be the most likely place to check first.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mrs. Gorilla, I agree but I made some tacit assumptions in my answer. So you will understand where that answer came from, I will explain:

If the PCs are connected via hub, he's on a LAN whether he knows it or not. If the PCs are connected directly, Ethernet cable to Ethernet cable, ditto. If they are connected via USB or IEEE 1394, ditto. If they are connected via null modem cable and twisted pair, ditto.

So if they are connected at all, they are on a LAN, maybe with at worst a non-standard physical layer. The only question remaining is HOW they see each other. And the fact that the DB can be read at all (to give the "Read Only" message) says they ARE connected some way. They DO see each other. Therefore, the statement "not on a LAN" is a misunderstanding on rew's part. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, it ain't a poullet-dieu - as we Cajuns would say.

I agree that it is permissions. The trick is to set up the framework (a SHARE declaration) to allow permissions to even exist. Because otherwise, the two machines will NEVER be able to do as rew desires.

Even if both machines log in as the SYSTEM user, their SYSTEM SIDs will be different because each machine's MS license # is part of the base SID for accounts created on each machine. Therefore, the two machines clearly will have different SIDs on which to base their access rights. Even if rew creates the same account on both machines, the MS license is part of those SIDs as well, so they STILL will differ.

You have to make the two machines understand what sharing will be allowed. And if it isn't a domain, then the only other choice is WorkGroup and a SHARE declaration. Microsoft gets pinged all of the time because of their lax security as it is. Having this level of access automatically available is not going to happen without something definitive to declare it.

Further, if the system is set up for simplified security, you will have a devil of a time getting the permissions tab to be visible. It's like pulling teeth in many cases. If at all possible, depending on the version of Windows on each box. So the coward's way out is to define a SHARE as the framework for file sharing and just open the floodgates.