Ed, > > Because it's a language/product development system that is responsible > > for thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands, but even thousands is > > enough) of running applications that MS will discover it can't just pull > > the plug on or walk away from. > > Why can't it? This is Microsoft we're talking about. Do > you think that they're going to worry about a small group of VFP apps? Hell, > just re-write 'em in .Net!
And squish those who can't afford the time or investment > > In addition, there's long been a significant lawsuit looming behind MS's > > "fundamentally deceitful" handling of FoxPro, but it never took on any > > mass. > > That is very telling in and of itself. Perhaps, but now MS has thrown down the gauntlet. That may well be their prerogative, but every action has consequences. > > That will change if MS implements an OS change that kills running VFP > > applications. The on-line community represents just a slice of VFP > > users around the world. If MS were to do something to kill running > > applications, they will come out of the woodwork to sign up for a > > class action lawsuit. > > Microsoft already has permission to disable anything on your > computer. Why should VFP be exempt? And who is financing this class- > action lawsuit? You can get lots of people to sign up, but someone's > going to have to back it up with money. If someone were to take this on, he or she could start with acquiring the list of VFP purchasers and ask questions like these: - have you been hurt by MS's handling of VFP? - do you believe MS was deceitful in it's handling of VFP? - do you support a class action lawsuit to get MS to the table on the matter of VFP continuity? > > But MS wouldn't let it come to that. Instead the company will find some > > entity to turn over the product over to, minimally - maybe even > > expressly - for the purpose of maintenance to deal with this very > > problem - and then exit gracefully. Even this tidbit would be enough, > > because it will give us a defense against the "VFP is dead" argument. > > The company will have to decide between giving us this tidbit or deal > > with an embroilment. > > Again, wishful thinking. They'd probably point to efforts such as > Christof's Guinea project, and tell you to use that. Frankly, I can't wait to use it, and maybe his effort will become the workable solution to this problem. I don't know this, so I'm guessing, but it seems to me that for Christof's effort to be "somewhere near complete", he will require access to VFP's source code. I think it's minimally reasonable that MS be required to provide this access. > > Because MS has enough trouble looming in the marketplace in the years to > > come, they wouldn't want this problem to come to a boil and be a thorn > > in their side while they have bigger fish to fry. No, they'll settle > > somehow. > > I have to say that you have a grossly over-inflated view of a) > Microsoft's vulnerability and b) the size of the VFP community that > would rather fight than switch. A) My IBM large systems background speaks volumes to MS's vulnerabilities. Take the matter of standards as the most precious, and compare what IBM has done with MS. Narrow it down ... take VSAM just as an example. This access method was created some two decades ago. Today it's at version 2.0. What is it that allows an invention to last that long? The answer has to do with standards. VSAM was created in such a way that it would last a *very* long time, and it has. MS is like a little puppy dog by comparison. Then take IBM's SMP methodology which involves 'systems programmers', an entire branch of computing that IBM has shrunken considerably, but never did - and couldn't - do away with, versus MS's centralized control model. IBM, on the one hand, has standards for integrating software at any level with the OS in an enduring and ongoing way. MS has *nothing* like it. Then there's the matter of batch processing, which Windows has to be dragged to the table to handle, while IBM machines churn out batch work that I've heard handles something like half their computing workloads. That ain't hay. How much batch work are we doing? Do we even think about batch work? I don't see too many discussions on the subject, but it's a major player in the computing world. This whole issue is like a blind side to MS. Given computing is a global scale enterprise, the only surprise here is that something even better then what IBM has done hasn't materialized already. It will happen, sure as we're sitting here. We just don't know from where it will come. China? Japan? Germany? Ireland? The movers and shakers in these and other places aren't sitting back basking in the luxury of MS's whims. B) I have no idea of how many people are willing to stand up to MS. This is an open question, but those who will should be given the chance. Part of me is wondering what JVP's take on this would be. Bill > -- Ed Leafe > -- http://leafe.com > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
