>
An awful bunch of opinions masquerading as fact in your retort, John.
>

For no other reason that I likely have a different opinion than you.

>
"but they require more labour to work with and maintain"... where is YOUR proof for this statement??? Compared to SQL Server or Oracle, which require more and higher priced effort to install, work with and maintain, what are you comparing DBFs with. It can't be SQL Server or Oracle. Access maybe?
>

dbf's of any appreciable size with cdx's require a lot of care and feeding. When it comes to maintenance, you have to roll your own solutions. I have developed enough VFP/SQL Server apps to know that when you lump all the costs in - in the long run - SQL Server - dollar for dollar - is cheaper, more robust, and more feature rich.

>
"file-bsed systems do not scale"... where is YOUR proof? I know that MS touts that aspect, but I accept that theirs is a marketing stance. Your isn't, is it???
>

A dbf of any appreciable size is slow when trying to access on a WAN. Also, a table cannot be larger than 2gb. So in terms of size, dbfs don't scale. Since there is no inherent security, dbf's can't scale in that respect either.

>
And what level of "scale" are you talking about... especially with web services used to defray the response issues associated with remote access??? Not every shop needs a thousand+ local and remote access users. "Does not scale" is a red herring to 90%+ of the businesses out there in the REAL WORLD!
>

That is a good point - and I am not saying that dbf's are useless - they are not. But...when talking about large-scale systems, dbf's are not a player. And regardless of size, security is (or at least should be an issue) - and dbf's again, lose the race. And of course, there are the inherent size limitations.

>
Why is it so "ludicrous"? Have server-based RDBMS (see, I got it right, Mr. Picky) become so pervasive that it is obvious to everyone? It **IS** ludicrous that MS states that server-based is the way of the future and you swallow it hook line and sinker.
>

Server based solutions is the way of today - not the future.

If file-based solutions were that compelling - then they would be used to a much wider degree than they are today.

>
Is the corporate world the only world? Is the corporate world incapable of erring? What about when "the corporate world" is all located off-shore and the only businesses left operating here are are small/medium sized businesses?
>

So in your opinion, small/medium sized businesses are not candidates for server based solutions? Put another way - your thinking is that small/medium sized businesses can have their needs best served by file-based data solutions.

It's not 1985 Jim....


>
John, you are famous for telling people to back up their assertions with FACTS. Here all you do is spout standard MS marketing material, backed up by nothing by thin air!
>

I have always backed up these opinions with facts. 2gb limit on dbf's, no inherent security, no inherent maintence scheme, no tx logging, inefficient data handling...how many more facts do you need.

Jim...arguments favoring file-based systems will not and cannot be won by trying to pit file-based systems against server-based systems on a feature by feature basis. It is an argument that cannot be won.

I am not saying that dbf's are per se bad. They have thier utility - and in many cases, they are the only feasible alternative. But, that by no way means they are the best solution.

If you have developed a Fox app in conjunction with Sql Server or Oracle, you would understand what I am talking about here.


>You're working too hard to get back into the MVP fold.

Oh yes...that's it - you got me...

< JVP >