Author: Ed Leafe
Posted: 2003-05-01 at 12:34:00
On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 12:19 PM, Dan Covill wrote:
> You're talking about the exact scenario I fear the most. Yes, we can
> run VFP6 wherever we wish. VFP7 is a bit more restrictive, VFP8 much
> more so. But there's absolutely nothing stopping them from including
> an "enhancement" in SP1 that refuses to run under anything but real
> Windows.
>
> I really do believe that MS' long-term strategy is to enforce their
> monopoly by making it harder and harder to use anything except the
> "full" package of MS software. Each new release we "upgrade" to will
> further restrict our options. The very eagerness with which we
> embrace the new VFP 8 features draws us further down the road of no
> return.
>
> It is just possible, folks, that we may have to give up something if
> we want independence.
I have not installed SP3 for Win2K because I refuse to accept the
modified EULA for it. It's one thing to have a new release of a product
come with new, more restrictive terms - that sucks enough. But to pull
something like that to a service pack is indefensible. They are holding
bug fixes and security patches "hostage" unless you agree to give up
rights.
And Microsoft people wonder why no one trusts them...
___/
/
__/
/
____/
Ed Leafe