From: "Paul Ranson" 

The whole technical premise of your article is wrong.

Paul

"Joe Barr"  wrote in message
news:pan.2003.05.15.22.21.20.823103{at}austin.rr.com...
>
> Exactly what did I say that made you think that way?
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 22:09:30 +0100, Paul Ranson wrote:
>
> > I think you're talking out of your arse.
> >
> > If you need SQL Server (or any other proper database) then VFP won't do
by
> > itself. If you don't need one then VFP, VB, VC++, Access all provide
> > solutions.
> >
> > There are obviously many other good reasons for not choosing VB.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.05.15.13.04.45.449737{at}austin.rr.com...
> >> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6869
> >>
> >> In the past few weeks, this story has appeared on The Register,
> >> Slashdot, LinuxWorld and even the German publication Heise Online.
> >> That's pretty amazing considering Microsoft has done its best the last
> >> few years to keep Visual FoxPro, one of its most powerful development
> >> tools, off the radar screen. Why would they do that? One simple reason:
> >> money. An application developed in Visual FoxPro is much more
economical
> >> for a business, as Visual FoxPro has its own data handling and storage
> >> capabilities. Contrast that with the much more popular tool Visual
> >> Basic, which requires a separate data engine (usually Microsoft SQL
> >> Server). Microsoft makes a lot more money selling licenses for SQL
> >> Server, which are quite expensive, than they do when VFP applications
> >> are distributed, requiring no additional license fees. So which
solution
> >> do you think Microsoft is going to promote? The fact that Visual FoxPro
> >> has a rich set of development tools and a robust object-oriented
> >> programming language doesn't concern them; they simply want the highest
> >> license fees they can squeeze out of their customers.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
>
> --
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4