>Hi Houston,
>
>>To hear Garrett Fitzgerald, you would get the impression that a developer (and a pretty good one at that) could come sailing into ones office, immediately find an appropriate PC, reverse engineer all of the presumably readily identifiable components and get to the data in short order.
>
>In a *typical* VFP application, not one like yours where you have spent considerable time developing what seems like a very impressive security architecture for your data, I would be more concerned about the user. In my experience, the typical VFP app uses a mapped drive to a server somewhere that contains the DBF files. The user has read/write rights to the data directory and could VERY EASILY cause some trouble or just burn a CD with the DBF files.
>
>Is my experience unlike others out here?

Hi Jim, I am not disputing that the vast majority of VFP Applications are typically accessed by a mapped drive that the User has direct access to.

I am disputing the validity of your (in my opinion) dramatically inflated concerns over the potential loss of data or damage to VFP systems because of the use of DBF’s. I have many years of experience and have yet to personally experience or even hear of the kind of willful / accidental damage you write about. Maybe I have been blessed and have a monopoly on conscientious capable Users, you on the other hand must have spent an eternity surrounded by demonic recidivists.

What exactly is the incidence of industrial espionage, accidental / deliberate sabotage, etc. that you are so keen to protect all of our Users from?

Why do you single SQL Server out for special attention and not other equally capable back end servers?

More importantly, do you need to resort to the written equivalent of histrionics when making your comparisons between VFP and SQL Server – indeed is this even a reasonable comparison to make?