I tend to agree with JVP on this one. I see the glass half full -- It would be

nice if there weren't so many bugs in 8 though. I've had to go back to VFP7

(which I guess is "illegal"?).

As for Bill's original statement, I think it was rather impolitic (and

impolite?) to spend so much of the keynote on .Nyet but what else to you expect

from M$.

However, John, you made what I thought was a rather gratuitous, personal dig at

Whilfest which had plenty of .NET sessions (as relates to VFP), as well as SQL

Server and ADO (as relates to VFP) when I was there last year. Were you there?

Chet

----- Original Message -----

From: "john.v.petersen" <john.v.petersen@comcast.net>

To: <profoxtech@leafe.com>

Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:48 PM

Subject: Re: [NF] - 2003 DevCon (short)

> Bill Anderson wrote:

>

> (melodramatic) -- Man, is that the pot calling the kettle black???

>

> JVP:

>

> Well...you would have to provide details on this. Brutal honesty and realism

> perhaps - but melodramatic???? No...

>

> Bill Anderson Wrote:

>

> No, I was implying that a .NET

> dominated keynote at a Visual FoxPro conference (50 minutes out of a 75

> minute keynote) was bad for the Fox community. You can argue all you

> want, but the audience didn't like it...

>

>

> JVP:

>

> I guess my response is - "What did the attendees expect?" Anyone with a clue

> knows that if MS is giving a keynote - it will have a decidedly .NET flair.

> FWIW, I don't see why a keynote like this should put a damper on things -

> unless of course people wish to ignore the truth. The fact is, the meat and

> potatos of a conference lies in the breakout sessions - not the keynote.

>

> Look at the bright side - MS is continuing to support the product - and from

> what I understand - more of .NET will have a VFP flair. The good news - as

> I understand it - is that people INSIDE MS are looking at VFP. This is

> where YAG - I think - is having major influence.

>

> VFP has not nor will it ever be the strategic focus of MS. Game - set -

> match - it is over. The next best thing you can hope for is that VS .NET

> gets the productivity features that makes VFP a good tool. At the same time

> however, we don't want the baggage that VFP brings to the table that makes

> it in some respects - far inferior to .NET...

>

> Oddly enough, people like me are looking at the glass as being half full

> while people like you are looking at the glass as being half empty. Pretty

> ironic I would say....

>

> Bill Anderson said:

>

> MSFT blew it, and they knew it. There isn't much more to say -- your

> conclusions are not relevant.

>

>

> JVP:

>

> Well...my conclusions are relevant. Whether you want to recognize them or

> not - that is your choice. As for whether MS feels they "blew it" - I highly

> suspect whether that is really true. In public, the mantra is to evanglize

> .NET - period. Again, the meat of the conference is in the sessions. And

> FWIW, in the last few years - at least 25% and at times a greater % of Fox

> conferences have been devoted to non-fox technologies.

>

> As the person who gave what is arbuably the first devcon sessions on Fox

> consuming data using non-fox technology - I again would say my conclusions

> are highly relevant. And, while I was not there, I did get briefed on the

> show by people inside and outside of MS...

>

> Bill Anderson said:

>

> Showing .NET content is relevant. Dominating with .NET at a VFP

> conference is not.

>

>

> JVP:

>

> This conclusion on your part is without merit. If you look at the session

> breakdown by technology - the conference was dominated by pure Fox sessions

> - sql server, office, and iis - all of which have become essential to a fox

> conference. You really cannot count the precons - as they are optional.

> Nonethess, there were sql server and Fox precons as well.

>

> The conference was not "dominated" by .NET. If you are attributing this to

> the keynote - you are placing WAY too much emphasis on the importance of the

> keynote...

>

> Bill Anderson Said:

>

> It's neither positive nor negative, it just is (their message). Like I

> said, MSFT knew they blew it.

>

> JVP:

>

> My guess is if MS had to do it again, they would play it the same way....

>

> You may think they knew they blew it - but given that it was in line with

> the overal MS strategy and given that there was a nice balance of sessions -

> I disagree with your conclusion...

>

>

>

[excessive quoting removed by server]