On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:04 PM, MB Software Solutions, LLC <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Bourke wrote: >> >> >> What we see happening sometimes is that if a company has an internal IT >> department and they're evaluating solutions of which ours is one, the IT >> people will get onto Google and from there establish that VFP is 'dead'. >> So we do lose out in those terms sometimes. But the vast majority of >> companies we sell to don't ask or if they do, don't care. >> >> One of the main objections customers have is the DBF format, and I agree >> that it is getting increasingly flaky in terms of locking and file >> access contention as Windows progresses. In fact a time will come when >> having shared VFP data on a Linux box and using Samba may well work >> better in all cases than having it on a Windows box (I know Ted(?) and >> Paul and others would say that's already the case). >> >> Having said that there is still huge scope for applications with a VFP >> front end and a separate database server backend (Postgres, MSSQL et al) >> > > > I switched over to MySQL years ago (2005?) and have been loving that > much moreso as a backend to my VFP apps. DBFs are ok, but not as > portable and professionally recognized as a MySQL database would be. -------------------------
I started using the connectivity kit from M$ with FPW2.5 never looked back. It was easy to complain about customers not having proper power protection and having memo files hosed. It was harder to fix the cheap ones who didn't pay for the right hardware. That first db was home grown from the company that sold the app. It had a driver for it and I learned how to put it all together. Ran on a SCO dual processor 386 as I remember. Got a model of the db and printed it for my office wall, it was pretty big. A month later my boss storms into my space and demands to know what it is. :) I tell him and get brought into his office. He gets on the phone with the vendor demanding to know why they lied to him on getting a model. They say they don't have one. He takes some polorids of my wall and faxes a copy of them back to the vendor. Those were the days! DBFs have no security as my first problem with them. They are independent files that work together. Before the dbc there was no overall control of the mess. The dbc was just meta data of the mess and if hosed it all was hosed. Last complaint was backup and restoration of data as well as a log of changes since last backup. All the reasons why I didn't look back to dbfs when I got working with better technology. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ 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.
