>>It's a little late to chime in, but on that page you say:
>>
>>"SQL Server offers security, reliability, replication, and many other features of a full relational database engine while the Visual FoxPro database system is an open file based DBF system that does not have many of those features."
>>
>>I wish you'd reword that. It sounds as if you're saying VFP is not reliable, but we know it is.
>
>DBF flat files do not offer security, reliability, or replication. What I did was list features that SQL Server includes and DBFs to not, which is accurate. There is nothing wrong with using DBF/DBC for the datastore in the application if you do not need those additional features.

Reliability is a matter of degree, not an absolute. You can't say that SQL Server never fails; it has a non-zero failure rate. DBFs also have a non-zero failure rate. Clearly, neither product is 100% reliable. How then, can one of them be "reliable" and the other "not reliable"?

As MS Visual Studio Data Product Manager, making that statement about reliability without qualification is, literally, ridiculous. VFP developers and their current and future customers deserve better.