>Well actually my "dream" project would be a 64 bit replacement for the VFP .dll set that would allow the "public" part of VFP to run "native" under
>Linux, Apple powerbooks etc, and other Intel or non-Intel environments.

One of the arguments of "intermediate language" or "byte code" has often been the better portability. And looking at java, C# (via mono), some python implemetations or even old foxpro for Xenix and Mac seems to support this.

> They are writing the runtime for the compiler in VFP as I understand it. I was thinking of a hardware independent VFP runtime (64 bit).

Write one and you are probably 90% finished for the other. And those efforts ARE open source, even if the "Open runtime" is just starting.

>But, helping out on the compiler would be another thing to do ... for those that have time on their hands or otherwise available to help that project for "sweat equity" that could be cashed in later. That would be another way to get that project done.

Just get your hands busy with it:
- either getting a feel for the current capabilities (might be considered "testing" if you tell about any issues you encounter)
- formulate tests in vfp showing the characteristics of each runtime function (which can be taxing on some functions)
- implement a replacement in vfp and test right in vfp (for bootstrapping - ETec's preferred method and porbably easiest for us)
- implement in another .Net language if you find you can finish faster and test via .Netextender or let others test.

ANY kind of action in that direction has IMHO at least chances of success, whereas I personally suspect that efforts like the petition will not move MS one iota.

regards

thomas