Ken,
I'd have to agree that the wording is bad. It definitely needs a rewrite. I'm assuming it's an honest mistake, though..>)
>>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"?
>
>I never said that, you did. You are drawing your own conclusions but not based on what was stated. It is all about degree, not absolute.
>
>>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.
>
>It said that SQL Server is "more reliable" than DBF files, which is a true and accurate statement. If you are saying that DBF files are as secure and reliable as data in a SQL Serve database, then I would assume your current and future customers (or employer) deserve better. It did not say you can't or shouldn't use DBFs for the main data store. Of course that is a viable option and works great in many cases, and the statement never said not to use DBFs. It is simply about having all the accurate facts in order to determine what is best for you and your applications/customers. I don't have any intent on changing the statement made, and I don't think a bigger deal should be made about it by parsing more into the statement that it deserves.