>Jim,
>
>And have you noticed that we NEVER hear (well, almost never) of problems with SQL Server data? You don't think that's because there are no problems, do you? I'm confident that we can attribute it to careful administration on the part of Microsoft to keep that kind of thing as quiet as possible. Much like Roll Royce "never let its driver down".
>
>There is as much legitimacy that SQL Server is unreliable as there is that DBFs are unreliable!
>
>Since you and others are closely scrutinizing Ken's words (and I generally agree with Ken's statement), it's only fair to ask this: what specifically have you seen that leads you to conclude that there's careful administration to keep things quiet, and what have you observed that prompted you to make the comment about "there is as much legitimacy that SQL Server is unreliable as there is that DBFs are unreliable?

Just one simple question Kevin.

Are DBF really that bad?