I agree with that, but how public will the magazine be? Will it be marketed for the outside public or a combination of the current members and the outside public? If the latter, a combination magazine (like Code was originally) would make more sense.


>But it might make good business sense to have features that would attract more and more .NET developers from outside those who originally used VFP. Code Magazine followed a similar strategy - successfully AFAIK
>
>>>>Never say that !!! Foxpro is most certainly not dead - there is a lot of it out there still, a lot of maintenance work here in the UK - also a lot of migration projects springing up - the one I'm currently working on has been active for two years plus - which I wouldn't have been assigned without my knowledge of Fox and .NET. I remember people saying COBOL is dead...
>>>
>>>Becuase you have a handful of people supporting legacy systems in VFP, it doesn't mean its viable. VFP is dead as a technology for developing modern solutions; to think otherwise is foolhardy.
>>
>>As far as the magazine is concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not VFP is viable or not. The magazine is a part of this forum. If the majority of members are VFP developers, I think it would make the most business sense to support that membership and add in new technologies. If a small number of members (in relation) are .net developers, why would the magazine focus exclusively on supporting the minority and not the majority?