>>And, yes, any kind of SQL backend is always better than DBFs.
>
>DBFs still have a place for single-user/local-data utilities and similar scenarios. In those cases it's valuable to not have the installation and runtime overheads of a separate DBMS.
True, dat!
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only