Since FoxPro is supposed to integrate well with .Net (ADO.Net, ASPX.Net etc.)
Ken Levy certainly tells us this!!!!!! and the Montreal Fox group as well as the Atlanta FoxGroup are already members of INETA, the suggestion is not so prepostorous. At the moment M$ FUD is killing FoxPro. I can give you several anecdotal examples from my own experience.

I am associated with three or four (depending on how you count them) C# developer Groups/study Groups in the Greater Los Angeles area. They are all sponsored by or created by members of FoxPro Developer Groups. Two of them are in INETA. I have notified them and the Fox Groups about this interesting new INETA development.

Clearly the situation is quite fluid. Maybe we can port FoxPro to the MONO platform. MONO is open source .NET and C# running on Linnux. One can entertain the hypothesis that if .NET flops and M$ goes under as a result, that the Developer community will migrate en mass to Open Source. IBM and others are encouraging this.

PS. Ken is a member of my Los Angeles FoxPro Developer Group and has spoken frequently at our meetings. He also reads this thread.





>>>It has been proposed that the name of Visual FoxPro 8.0 be officially changed to Visual FoxPro.NET, aka VFP.NET, upon its forthcoming release in early 2003. This would not entail any functional changes to the product, but purely a change in the way that VFP is presented and marketed. Instead of being an adversary of .NET, VFP would become a part of it, thereby changing both people's perception of VFP and the VFP community's perception about .NET. Do you agree, and would you be willing to endorse an immediate letter to Microsoft to that effect?
>>
>>We would need to squeeze it a little bit. Also, the letter statement is not necessary.
>
>OK. You could refer people to a separate explanatory document and references, if that seems necessary. (I'm not sure how much elaboration is really needed - maybe a reference to this thread is enough.) I do think it's important to make it absolutely clear that "This would not entail any functional changes to the product, but purely a change in the way that VFP is presented and marketed.", or else there's sure to be confusion. The sentence after that could be dropped, and you could just close with "Do you agree?"