Jim,

>Doug,
>
>>Tom,
>>
>>I couldn't agree with you more!!
>>
>>Think about it a little. Who are the real knuckleheads who know the day-to-day scoop regarding VFP? We are! <g>
>>
>>I'd really like to encourage Jim to start with his list and I'd think that the fox.wikis would be the ideal place for this type of endeavor.
>>
>>Jim??
>>
>SNIP
>
>Yes, I put the list out there, but it is everybody's list and people may do with it what they choose.

Ahh.. Didn't realize you'd already done this. Thanks..


>I personally do not have the time it would take to do the thing justice.

Hmm.. Why not hire someone to do the work? < eg >


>As for putting it on the Wiki, while no doubt a fine idea I just want to point out that I rarely go there, so in fact for me and others similarly disposed it would not be that helpful. I do, on the other hand, check the MS KB frequently.

Habit?


>
>Nor, however, do I believe that it is the answer to the problem, though I agree that it would be somewhat helpful.
>As Vlad G. pointed out (and Walter M. too), there remains no clue with this approach as to whether or not MS has 'accepted' the problem, much less any vague idea as to if/when any fixup might be planned.

I doubt we'll ever get such a list.

>
>My purpose in publishing that list was to show in concrete terms that there are lots of bugs 'reported' that do NOT show up anywhere in any MS KB or whatever. Lots of those bugs in that list were 'passed up the line' by the fine MS staff that hang out here.
>This, to me, makes the MS KB for VFP a mere shadow of its potential value.

I know the MSFT folks have answered this...

>
>And just throwing in for reinforcement: Fox Software DID provide lists of bugs that were exhaustive. Unfortunately, I threw out several such lists around 8 months ago when I did a major cleanup, else I would scan them and send them to whoever as proof positive.
>
>We've got a problem here. Some effort within the community is better than nothing, but it hardly does the job that's needed.
>Jim

Well, I've always thought that 50% of something is always better than 100% of nothing.