>[Snip...]
>
>MB>>How do you define "better?" MS has a vision. Not everything has to be in one box... I need to be able to *do* anything but not necessarily in one product. So, we want secured data. Why is the answer of SQL Server (or even the upcoming Personal SQL) such a bad answer? Yes, I want passwords on VFP databases. But, if anyone voiews VFPs datastore as its prime feature, I think they are missing the boat. Truth be told, if VFP could not read a DBF again, it would still be the best product for database development because of the DML and the fact that we have a data oriented, object oriented language.
>>
>JB>VFP DBC/Tables is already in the box, we are not asking for a new one. What we are asking for is to add the necessary feature to make it more interesting and appealing to end-users. You also have to think on the economic side of the end-users. A lot of medium scale businesses could not afford to invest on C/S application because of economic concerns.
>
>So, for those businesses, something simple in the way of security is normally enough. If you are dealing with a business where data security is a prime concern, then they should go with a product that provides these features.
>
>As for the economic concerns, I don't see the huge deal. The additional cost for SQL Server is not that huge, even if you have to throw a brand new NT Server on the network. Furthermore, if they're dead set against going C/S, we have options for security. For example, back in the old DOS days, there was a product called SiteLock that provided dynamite security on Novell Networks (conditional access rights to directories... you could only access the directory from within a specific .EXE. While I do not know if something like this exists currently for the windows environment, it would be worth a check. In addition, we always have the option of encryption.

As I have said time and again, there are lot of ways to secure the data or even the whole application. We only want VFP DBC/Table to have a built-in level of security even inside or outside of NOS.

>
>So, would it be nice if MS gave us full featured security in VFP? Sure. Is it going to give me funcitonality that I cannot get now through other means? Yeah, but only a small percentage of the time. I can understand MS saying that there is bigger bang for their development buck elsewhere.
>
>[Snip...]
>
>MB>>Let me put it this way. Why not ask MS to put a spreadsheet into VFP? Or how about a word processor? We don't ask for these things because we have never had them and we know that we have Excel and Word (or other COM compliant products) to work with. We have been doing this since DDE came around. When it comes to the data store, so many of us are so married to the DBF that we lose sight of the forest for the trees (my humble opinion only).
>>
>JB>Because we are Developers and not End-Users. Word/Excell is for MS-Office while VFP is for MS-Visual Studio. As MS admits, MS-Office is for End-Users while MS-VS is for Developers.
>>
>JB>As Developers, although we are in the position to suggest on what is best for them (and favorable to us ofcourse), we should also anticipate that these end-users are in better position to demand what they want because a lot of them are knowledgeable enough on IT matters.
>
>Now you lost me. What do I care about whether a product is end user or not. The solutions we develop are for end users, no? We are arguing for features that will enable us to build better solutions for our users.
>
>As a side point, as to making suggestions to our users that are "favorable to us of course", I disagree once again. My focus is on the client. If the client has a need and their best interest says that they do something that is not in my best interest (like find another consultant), I will make that recommendation.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Frankly, I think the justification for password control is more useful for enhancing existing systems that creating new ones. If personal SQL has the security I want, I have no problems working with that tool (assuming that it is as easy to use as I need it to be) than the DBF.
>>
>>Personal SQL is personal and will not run Network environment just like Oracle Personal Database.
>
>Are you sure about this? I seem to recall that I heard different but I will take your word for it.

Oracle personal, Sybase SQL Anywhere are just the same in capacity which are designed for stand-alone apps only. I do not know exactly about SQL server personal yet, but to me it sounds like the same.