That's exactly why I am moving to Visual C# with SQL Server 2005 express for my POS/Inventory Management application suite, in which some sensitive data such as sales amounts and inventory item cost had to be distributed to many stores. SQL server also does all the batch jobs for inventory data replication and sales data update between each of the retail stores and the server at the central office. Performance has hardly come up as one of issues with VFP. I think SQL CLR stole some good stuff from VFP list CLR stored procedures and CLR functions. I am still trying to convince my colleagues to move from Visual Studio.NET 2005 to Visual Studio.NET 2008 to take advantage of LINQ.. Probably the second reason for the movement is that my colleagues do not know how to program in VFP....
gureumi On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Russell wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:46 AM, MB Software Solutions General Account < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Some dooschbag at one of our sites is making such a stink about our VFP9 > >> free tables not being secure, and telling how folks can get into the > >> tables on the LAN and do bad things. I laugh because this app has been > >> working great for this company for years and it's never been a problem > >> until Mr. New Guy who used to work in the Security division at VISA card > >> came onto the scene. He's touting how he could break through the > >> firewall on the LANs in less than 5-10 minutes, etc. etc. etc. I think > >> he's basically trying to get attention. Yes, our VFP tables are NOT > >> secure. Anyone tech savvy knows that a file server database is NOT > >> secure like a database server. > >> > >> Question for those who have seen Advantage Database Server: is this the > >> best way to take a legacy VFP app (which uses tons of xbase approach > >> code) and make it secure so that any DBF viewer you download from Google > >> is blocked from reading it? My colleague was able to download something > >> called DBF Manager and plow right into a DBF. (It didn't even care > >> about the cheap DBC Events security I put into a test/sample database.) > >> > > ------------------------------------- > > > > That db is right. Not secure, not now or not later. Never going to > happen. > > > > > > Sucks when you get called on wrong design and you have to get it > straight. > > I am finding lots of "stuff" that is wrong with our in house plant > > operations. Getting them overhauled is tough! But we have to do it. > Our > > issues are not secure data but to much on every interface. > > > > > I know that he's right....but that's not why he's a dooschbag. ;-) > > I never argued the point---VFP was/is/always will be an insecure database! > > This design is from the late 80s if I heard correctly from legacy Fox, > so they did what they could with obvious Fox limitations. > > Our app is already begun to be replaced by a new DotNet app so there's > no sense in us overhauling this legacy Fox app. > > [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.
