Hi Jim ----

>>
>>Are you going to tell me, seriously, that you can get a client to buy into an enterprise solution based on DBFs???? Especially heterogenous n-tier client/server solutions. I'm not talking a podunk Mom and Pop application, I'm talking about real line-of-business applications.
>>
> Yes, I am! I've seen it done! Extremely well, too. And may I mention Eurotunnel?

I don't think that Eurotunnel is client/server...I believe it's a big humping file server database. Which VFP does REALLY well.

>And what is holding YOU back from pushing for these modest improvements in DBFs and VFP??? Fear for VFP's future? Fear that C/S is the way to go and you don't want to be left behind? Anxiety to be "in the club"?? What's holding you back, John???

OK --- If you know my line of posts in the past, you'll know that I don't believe that every solution should be couched in terms of client/server. BUT, at the enterprise level, you almost HAVE to to ensure that the client has a strong central database that can be manipulated from God-knows how many different front ends.

You have to draw a distinction here, Jim, between an application and it's data and the enterprise and it's data. You are right *IF* data can be thought of as an island; an island that can wholly be controlled and landed on by you. But you are dead wrong when trying to plan a central datamart/datastore for the entire organization. In fact, most enterprise systems engineers think that SQL Server is too weak for that level and prefer Oracle.

BTW...what club were you referring to? I'm already heavily into SQL Server and Oracle and have been for years...I am (and you should be) pleased that we are slowly gaining more and more integrated control of these databases FROM Fox rather than whining about the lack of respect that DBFs get and how to fix them.