Alan, > > 2. "Flat-file" is a pejorative that makes a big deal of the > difference > > between data stored with fixed, rather then variable, length > > fields/records. > > What I was getting at was the difference between a VFP database, which > is a bunch of files in a folder, and something like SQL Server / > Postgres / MySQL ...
To me, it's like the tabs versus spaces argument: neither side overwhelms the other. > My use of the term 'flat file' was incorrect there I think. > > > > > 3. "Insecure table format". Ah, the dreaded "security" sword. The > > paranoids > > among us can use freely available encryption. > > We find that a lot of potential customers are alarmed at the fact that > users could access raw VFP data through a network share. Sure, you can > add encryption but surely something inherently secure would be better. I've limited exposure by (1) stating clearly up front in doc that "(product name) is NOT a secure product", with a brief explanation of what this means, ending with "If your operational requirements are such that you require file security, it will have to be implemented at a higher level then the program and it's files (for example, a locked down computer environment), or we must suggest using an alternative product as we cannot meet this requirement." I don't say it, but if a sale hangs in the balance on this issue and it involves something specific, then I would offer to implement encyption rather then lose the sale. (2) by integrating QuickBooks for accounting, the most sensitive area. Other then that, for the most part, the stuff my apps manage is intended to be shared in the office. However, acknowledging that all information has value, someone could steal it for whatever reason. But then I feel that if an employee is intent on stealing company information, even with a fully secured encrypted database, the thief could get a password somehow or just access a machine running the application while the authorized operator is out or in the bathroom - etc. It's for reasons like this that I want to just avoid or pass on the whole "security" thing. > > > > > 4. "Increasingly flaky locking approach". True, more then 1 > > person/process > > can't update the same record at the same time, but that's > true for any > > system. From my perspective as a provider of software to > small business > > with > > one or a few workstations, I'm just not seeing flaky > locking problems, > > but > > if does happen, I'll figure out a way to deal with it. > > What I meant here is that we will find over time that changes > in Windows will require increasing amounts of tweaking to make things > like VFP play sociably. You can already see this with Windows Server 2008 > and the new SMB2 protocol, which you have to turn off (bad) if you want to change > OpLock settings on the server. I see the discussion on this, including your post at http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~OpportunisticLocking I see your advice "to leave them alone unless there are file access or locking problems, then start messing with the settings". In this page http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winservergen/thread/01ddd2c 0-568d-457e-a229-8f51872610b0 I see that other products are affected as well "I'm having the same problem with a DBase III + Clipper application. Anybody found a solution yet?" and I noticed another mention involving yet other products at http://www.superbase.com/services_tech_support_oplocks.htm "However this protocol imposes a couple of problems for Xbase++/Clipper and even MS Access or Excel applications running in a shared network environment." I don't have an answer other then to think that people using these products and affected by this problem need to hold MS's feet to the fire to get a fix or clean workaround. > > VFP as it is is VERY suitable for MANY applications today and will > > continue > > to be so as far into the future as we can see today. > > Absolutely, we have thousands of customers using it and will have for > quite a while to come. But if I were starting a new major > project I'd be looking at more future-proof alternatives in most cases. I don't see anything out there today that beats VFP for all it is. Down the road I'm hoping to see more Linux advances, particulary something even better then VFP - and to see IBM figure out how to add SMP/E management for the OS. And VM is a major asset for us. > > Someone may ask "well, who cares about small business anyway?" I do! > > Me too! They pay my wages! I think we chose wisely! Bill > -- > Alan Bourke > alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm > > [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/ec88b418e4f64bbb85f31a2229c09...@bills ** 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.
