>>What are the reasons for a fact or event, related to FoxPro or its community, to be part of the history (or not)?
>
>From my perspective, the big question to be asked here is whether two years or five years or 10 years from now, that discussion will seem significant.
>
>There's a real problem trying to write history right after it occurs. We've seen plenty of examples in the last couple of years with all the "Greatest X of the century" lists. Almost every list of anything I saw was unreasonably weighted to the more recent. You need time and perspective to really evaluate things, so a good list of "Greatest books of the 20th century" or "Greatest films of the 20th century" or whatever probably can't be compiled for at least 10 years, and more realistically for 20 or 30.
>
>Similarly, we're all too close to the "Will Microsoft Market VFP" discussion to figure out whether it's historically significant. We won't know for several years.
>
>Maybe the solution is to have a "Recent Events" section of your history that doesn't try to make that judgement. Put things like this there and revisit them later when enough time has gone by to be able to evaluate them. (There's still a problem with this approach since putting such items in "Recent Events" distorts their value, but I think it's a better solution than dubbing them "history" now.)
>
>Tamar

Within the academic world of historians, it is thought unwise to write of an event or events that have occurred within the last 100 years. This rule is often violated and in the case of technology many things have and will occur within a 100 year span.

By the time we know if the recent marketing approach taken by Microsoft has been of benifit to Visual FoxPro sales, home computers will no longer exist! :)

Tom