What I am saying is that you have many more options on how you are going to protect your data using a server database. I'm not that familiar with Oracle from an admin standpoint, but I am with SQL Server. From the standpoint of a VFP developer, like Nick, there is very little good reason, beyond just security, to stick with the native DBF structure if the data is distributed. In fact, if you wanted to be really anal-retentive, you could restrict access to ad-hoc queries and table access of any type and only allow access through data service stored procedures (ooops, giving away part of my DevCon session), thereby eliminating virtually all security issues.


>I can agree with that, but from a security point of view, aren't you just saying that two padlocks are better that one?
>My point is that security isn't an absolute. We lock our houses, but that only makes it a little harder for a someone to get in. We add a security system, but that only makes it a little more uncomfortable for a thief. Adding bars, more locks, etc. may be required to ensure more security but people can still get in and take your stuff.
>Looking at security considerations only and again, I'm only looking at security in the sense of who gets what access, Oracle doesn't seem to add much, but then that's my question. You say system security versus database security--what does database security do that system security can't? Or is it another padlock that can be unlocked using the same key?
>
>>A major difference here is system security versus database security. VFP has no database security. SQL Server and Oracle do. So, not knowing anything else about the environment, it's safe to say that the data is better protected with one of those two.
>>