Well, I'd have to say I agree with what you're saying here . . .

>Hi Russell,
>
>The problem is that most on this thread are missing the point of the original objection to Ken's remarks. His verbiage leads one to believe that security, replication and reliability are "have or have not" traits. You could easily argue that the first two fit that description but reliability certainly deserves a continuum rather than a YES/NO. I think we all agree that DBF files would rank lower on the reliability continuum than SQL Server files.
>
>And, when the Program Manager of VFP infers that DBF's are "not reliable" (rather than less reliable than SQL Server), that hurts! How can I sell an app to a small/medium business that uses a NOT RELIABLE data store?
>
>Thanks again for the sanity,
>
>Ken