Yes, you need to weigh the risks in relation to your client's needs (client can be external or internal). I'm working at a small, publicly traded company with very liberal political leanings. We have gone with small, unproven applications for off-the-shelf solutions, but no way we're going with it for in-house work.

>Your point may be quite valid. Definitely so. But sometimes, taking no risk is taking one. And sometimes, rarely so but that happens, it can be a big one.
>
>Sticking to the early way of delivering software à la IBM 1970 was a risk. Not delivering an early web site with early generations of crappy tools such as php or ASP first generation was A PROVEN RISK for some. Taking no risking and rebuilding an VFP application with the early versions of Net has been for quite few people and enterprises was A PROVEN RISK. Keeping one set of skills onto the exclusive MS path and vision is definitely a risky proposition to-day.
>
>The list of risky situations in IT is endless and certainly does not include properly evaluating NEW offers in a cost-effective manner.
>
>What is the risk of running a limited rewrite of a limited VFP application with Lianja? The same kind of risk that writing an application with Foxbase+. I can remember doing (long ago!) and was rewarded handsomely at that time.
>
>Does that mean that Lianja will make it? Certainly not. Does it mean that some among us who a problem to cast to their offer should make a try. Most assuredly:)
>
>Not everyone works for a highly conservative S&P500 corporation or a public admin.
>
>
>.