>>Call it whatever you want but i believe Dragan made a valid point here. Foxers on the whole are rather good with data.
>
>Sorry to start a war here, but associating a skill with use of a technology is a flawed argument - and I can tell you for fact it's not likely to cut it in the job market/job interview process.
>
>If I went up on any other site and proclaimed, ".NET developers on the whole are rather good with applications", I'd get laughed off the site.
>
>For all the great and positive things that have come out of the Fox world (and there have been many great things), the Achilles heel has always been this arrogance that amounts to, "I've used Fox for years....therefore I'm rather good with data".
>
>Unless a technical interviewer knows the history of FoxPro, and/or the candidate has a very strong resume, a technical reviewer isn't likely to place strong weight on a Fox background. On more than one occasion, I've been on interview teams where I advocated a person with a strong Fox background, where the other team members were pure SQL Server people who basically equated Fox with Access and wanted to dismiss the candidate. Yes, it is not fair and I've had to fight those battles, but the perception exists. So again, this arrogance of "I know Fox, therefore I'm good with data" can actually be counter-productive unless the person can demonstrate skills beyond the specific product.
>
>Sure, there are many Fox people who are good with data. I'll use one example: Walter Meester. Walter and I have certainly disagreed strongly on topics like .NET, but Walter has demonstrated many times that he has data and query skills that transcend Fox.
>
>I feel very badly for Tommy and I hope he finds something quickly.
>At the same time, his story (and stories of others) should be a cautionary tale.


OTOH if he's near retirement and funded it might be a good thing.