>>I think this thread will be interesting.
>
>Only if John is willing to respond.
>
>He doesn't seem to have much to say about my counter arguments as of late.

10 gb table, with full text search, accessed over a wan. You can use Fox Data and I'll use SQL Server.

By the way, in order to be a "counter argument" - you have to make an argument in the first place. Also, you have to address it to the person making the argument - which was Gerry. At best, what you are doing is trying to make a counter-counter argument. i.e., you are standing in place of Gerry - trying to rebut my response.

You can do that all you want - but for sure - you cannot goad me into some half-cocked response.

My simple 10gb table, full search, acessed over a wan is something Fox could not do - so you can see how easily your challenged can be swatted back. In the interests of fair play, you can define what flexibility means for this excercise and you can offer up a scenario. I am not saying I will take part. Rather, I am interested in what you would come back with.

Just so you know, there is precedent for this. Some years ago, John Koziol spouted off in the old off ramp that Fox could process strings faster than VB. Bottom line, he got hammered? Why, because he left the door too wide open - just as you did here. When you state something such as Fox + dbfs is more flexible than SQL Server - and leave it at that - of course I am going to come up with an example that techncially, Fox can't handle. Unfair? Perhaps. Nonetheless, it does shoot holes in your "more flexible" argument. If you want - we could start to focus on remotely administering indexes, constraints, etc if you like. I am sure DBF's will just run circles around SQL Server there as well....< bg >....

< JVP >