On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Kevin Cully wrote:

> Here's another article from over at TechWorld.  It looks like a
> rehashing/reduction of the ComputerWorld article.  I don't care  
> much for
> the title "Microsoft sentences FoxPro to death"
> http://www.techworld.com/applications/news/index.cfm? 
> newsID=8485&pagtype=all

        Remember when we all jumped over the author of one of the first  
articles on this for saying that VFP itself was going to be open  
sourced, not just Sedna? Well, read this quote in the techworld  
article from Jay Roxe, Microsoft’s group product manager for Visual  
Studio:
"For Microsoft to continue to evolve the FoxPro base, we would need  
to look at creating a 64-bit development environment, and that would  
involve an almost complete rewrite of the core product," Roxe said.

"As far as forming a partnership with a third party is concerned,  
we’ve heard from a number of large FoxPro customers that this would  
make it impossible for them to continue to use FoxPro since it would  
no longer be from an approved vendor. We felt that putting the  
environment into open source on CodePlex [Microsoft’s open-source  
site], which balances the needs of both the community and the large  
customers, was the best path forward."

        When I read that, it sure sounds to me like they are "putting the  
environment into open source", and this is coming direct from a  
Microsoft manager, not some clueless author.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to