FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues

bltfast32 writes "I don't know how many people have been following this, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on. Whil Hentzen, prominent FoxPro and Linux advocate, has received some heat lately for publishing a HOWTO in the March 2003 FoxTalk issue for running Visual FoxPro 8.0 on Linux with WINE. Of course, the aforementioned heat, is coming from Redmond. Here is a link to a nice summary of the interactions by Whil." That summary mentions the Register article online here. bltfast32 also points to another article which requires registration.

Comments

No surprise

[Gefiltefish11]

To anyone who has followed MS's track record (as highlighted so vociferously here on /. over the past few years), this should come as no surprise at all.

Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.

Thinking about this a bit more, it seems that control is the name of the game in most of industry --MPAA and RIAA certainly included!

Re:No surprise

[TopShelf]

Control, however, is extremely important when it comes to brand reputation, and is perfectly justifiable in many cases. Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Now, there may well be another decision process about whether to include more operating systems within the product's scope - this goes back to the level of user demand and the resources it would take to make this happen (cost/benefit). As pertains to this issue, would expanding FoxPro to run under WINE be a good business decision for Microsoft? Probably not - most of those customers are looking for FoxPro itself, not the operating system - which means they'd pick Windows as a default and probably not complain too much because it's FoxPro that they're familiar with and want.

Re:No surprise

[Descartes]

In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software

are you kidding? This is 100% about profits. Microsoft knows it makes some great products (like FoxPro) but the majority of their market share is in the OS, which is not nearly as well made. Microsoft knows if they let people start using their good products on other OSs that they'll lose their OS market share. Why bother using a buggy, and insecure OS when you can get a much better product for free, assuming you're willing to put in the effort to use linux.

Micosoft is not just worried about a few linux nerds, they're worried about companies doing the math to figure out the difference in cost between paying someone to get their system working in linux and the cost of paying for MS licenses. As a linux nerd I have no personal need to run MS software and potentially violate their EULA, but I know that companies are willing to pay me to do it if it helps their bottom line.

Re:No surprise

[arkanes]

No, it's not. Theoretically, an EULA is a legally binding document - you're saying it's reasonable for a company to be able to (legally) require you to use a specific OS, whether or not it's required from a technical standpoint (it's obviously not, in this case, since it works). That's absurd, especially when the company in question is an OS company. It's tied directly to all the old arguments about monopolies and abusive behavior. They're perfectly justified in refusing support to anyone who's trying to run it under a non-authorized system, but bringing legal force to bear on someone who is doing so, or even helping other people do so, is utterly ridiculous.

Re:No surprise

[Catiline]

In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.

No, geeks cost Microsoft big dollars -- and not when you apply *AA style piracy maths. When Microsoft begins their push to .NET based application servers where you don't own a copy but instead pay "rent" for the software (monthly? Hourly? Per use? All of the above?), every user of Open Source will be a lost stream of revenue. Under such a scheme (where you pay constant fees for using MS software but OSS/Linux remains free=beer), I know a whole bunch of people who would find it very favorable to switch to Linux purely for that financial aspect (as it is a problem of a completely different magnitude to forge a valid server login versus pirating standalone programs).

Also as people become less capable of performing their own system maintainence thanks to Digital Rights Manglement and Palladium protection of the OS (ever performed a 1:1 hard drive swap or motherboard upgrade under Windows XP?), they will find more and more value in the free=speech (libris) aspect of OSS as well. Yes, we Linux geeks don't cost Microsoft any money at all... except in lost sales of upgrade packages (and in the future, lost rent on their software). And that sum of money, according to the *AA piracy maths, is vast indeed (why, I myself must have cost them $1B thanks to my own non-MS use and advocacy thereof!).

Re:No surprise

[obsid1an]

Microsoft already makes no warranties about what happens to the software when run so why should the fact that "uncertanties" could come up make any difference on linux than in windows? Besides, it is fine to fun the FoxPro IDE on linux, just not distribute apps FoxPro apps for linux. Now why would it be illegal to run custom made apps on the OS since it isn't microsoft doing the troubleshooting or tech support but the maker of the app?

Re:No surprise

[fferreres]

It is not supported under Linux, so they should have no problems at all. In fact, there are many products that are not supported under several variants of Windows, but there are how-to's for the brave that want to try to make it work despite they will be on their own.

Could run != Is supported

Re:No surprise

[TopShelf]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document that the user is entering into willfully, an OS restriction could easily be a part of that. (Now, whether shrinkwrap license agreements with more fine print then a mortgage are a good idea, that's another story)

From Microsoft's point of view, are they just supposed to take a few techies word for it that FoxPro "works" under WINE? Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

Re:No surprise

[ackthpt]

Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control

Well, they've only got so much control... you see this statement:

The EULA requires that the "Distributables" (defined in a separate file that's part of the Visual FoxPro installation) could only be used "in conjunction with the Windows operating system".

And think how broad that is (assuming that's the actual wording, which it may not be, yet...) so you could, in the spirit in which many e-tailers sell Microsoft wares, etc. with "system hardware" (say, toss in a $2.00 cable and sell the OEM version of software) So... all you really may need is a PC somewhere with any version of a Microsoft operating system on it and perform a ping over some serial or network cable and you're in compliance, right? ;-)

Re:No surprise

[Pharmboy]

Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.

One of the benefits of having profit margins in the 50%+ range is you can do stuff like this. Well, maybe not morally or potentially legally, but you can afford it anyway.

Re:No surprise

[cayenne8]

Can anyone quote in the the EULA where it states that you can't run/distribute this software on other OS's besides windoze?

Re:No surprise

[Nevyn]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document that the user is entering into willfully, an OS restriction could easily be a part of that. (Now, whether shrinkwrap license agreements with more fine print then a mortgage are a good idea, that's another story)

It's not obvious that the above is legal though, for a normal company. For a company that owns/controls both the OS and product, it's even less likely.

Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

So what about the business with a firewall that doesn't allow machines to connect to microsoft's update servers ... are you saying that MS should be allowed to say you can't firewall their products? What about if you run more than one service on that machine, and the update breaks the other non-MS service ... should they then be allowed to require you to update?

Most companies solve this problem by saying it isn't supported on platforms, they don't support. Not that it is not allowed to use it on platforms they don't support.

Re:No surprise

[cayenne8]

Just wondering...didn't Lindows just win a lawsuit, that pretty much stated that windows was a generic term, and not just owned by MS? If so..as long as you were using this on a 'windowing system', like "X"...would that not be legal?

Just curious....

Re:No surprise

[Archie Steel]

Well, in that case, they should just not offer any support for it. That's seems like a simple, reasonable (and legal) proposition. Here's the product: if you don't use it within such framework, then we're not responsible if something goes wrong. Except that in this case, of course, MS isn't responsible if things go wrong even if you use the software within the suggested framework. So it is a control issue - they just want to continue to impose their monopoly, like they've done in the past.

Re:No surprise

[NanoGator]

"Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits."

Of course the game is control. If Microsoft doesn't control the environment that their product is running in, then how can they possibly support it? Afterall, people have a way of blaming Microsoft for other people's problems.

"Netscape crashed, damn Microsoft!"

How do you tell if any problems are a result of FP or a result of Wine?

In any case, I have no doubt that MS doesn't want its stuff running on Linux, afterall that does mean that Linux is easier to adopt. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the main motivation is here. Frankly, I'm sick of how everything is about how evil and greedy Microsoft is. Microsoft's world is not that b&w. There are humans working there afterall.

Re:No surprise

[Dr. Zowie]

It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't be. Yes, attempting to regulate use of the application is one way to solve the problem. No, it's far from the best way.

In California in the mid-1990s, there was a problem that insurance companies were getting hit hard by large court awards to the families of motorcyclists. It seems that a lot of motorcyclists were getting killed in collisions with cars, where the cars were at fault. The solution that was adopted was to require all riders to wear motorcycle helmets -- in other words, to assume a paternalistic attitude toward the riders. The correct solution (in the sense of being minimally intrusive while solving the problem) would have been to legally limit the liability of car drivers who hit helmetless motorcyclists.

Likewise, restricting the operating system is a bad move from the point of view of the customer: a better solution (for the customer) is just to refute any warranty or support for other platforms than Windows. The only reason to try restricting the output environment is to preserve Microsoft's monopoly, at the expense of the customer.

Re:No surprise

[Crispy Critters]

Control, however, is extremely important when it comes to brand reputation, and is perfectly justifiable in many cases. Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

I see the propaganda has succeeded and mind control is now complete.

It is not the slightest bit reasonable ever for a company to be able to control how you use their product after you have given them money in return for the right of such use.

To give a concrete example of why this is wrong, for those who don't find it obvious, imagine a company wants to distribute these executables to a restricted set of identical Linux boxes with the configuration carefully tested. There is no danger of damaging the reputation of the original framework; in fact this could only improve its reputation.

Your argument is the same one that would make all mp3 files illegal, because they may be related to illegal copying, or the outlawing of the DeCSS code because it might be used to make a forbidden copy.

Maintaining a remotely free society demands extreme scrutiny of such examples of prior restraint, restrictions based on a hypothetical damage with no proof that it ever had or would actually occur.

Re:No surprise

[4of12]

It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

Would it?

It seems strange to me that software EULA should be so encumbered with these kinds of restrictions if one makes a comparison to automobiles.

In that case, the manufacturer doesn't restrict you to only drive on certains roads, or toll-roads, as the case may be.

Rather, it's understood, and usually described in the user's manual, that the automobile works best and has been test to work well on paved hard-surfaced roads. If you drive off-road, or on a non-recommeded road, then you assume responsibility for the consequences. Various warranties and legal protections are disclaimed.

Software should be treated similarly. You assume the risks and consequences if you use the software in unintended ways, but there shouldn't be some arbitrary restriction on how you may use it.

The only valid reason for tying Visual FoxPro to a particular OS like Windows is in the case of a systems integrator that assumes extra risk by tying together all of your systems and guaranteeing the whole kit and kaboodle will perform.

For MS to claim it is a systems integrator in this regard is, at the least, far-fetched.

Worse, their actions could be viewed very plausibly as a conflict of interest.

Re:No surprise

[StarTux]

Thats fine when you're not a bona fide monopoly...Having 90% or so of the desktop market changes everything with regards to this, they are indeed tying this product into the OS.

Also, its easy to say, "unsupported" rather than we sue you...

StarTux

Re:No surprise

[IdleTime]

This is not so much about VFP as it is a testing ground for what will come from MS.

I don't think MS cares if VFP apps were to be run on Linux. The whole ordeal is more about how they are thinking of changing the EULA so that no program written for MS Windows can legally be run on anything else than Widnows.

What they are trying to do here is to ban all Windows executables from beeing run on an OS other than Windows. MS sees Linux as a long term threath and they want to do something about it. They can't buy it and kill it. They can't FUD it away. They can't compete on prize or quality. What is there left? The answer is easy: Keep people away from the opportunity to run any for of Windows programs under Linux. How? By changing the EULA and enforce it!

If they succeed with VFP, more products will follow suite and soon the EULA's will prohibit the programs from running on anything else than MS approved OS'es and we all know that MS will never approve of Linux.

This has far more grave consequences than what the VFP developer community has seen. It is the start of locking down Windows.

Re:No surprise

[malfunct]

I would say this is espcecially true of Fox Pro programmers. They live in a world disconnected from reality as we know it (which is why they haven't upgraded to a reasonably new database technology and support language) would probably blame microsoft for all kinds of problems that were OS related and not product related.

I also get the impression from people that developed fox pro that the users were upset when MS bought the product and were upset when they made it a "visual" lanugage.

That said I can't imagine that MS hasn't thought about possible lost OS license sales and that the lost sales aren't a major motivator for clamping down on the howto.

Re:No surprise

[Dr. Zowie]

(This is starting to get off-topic, but what the heck) Raising insurance rates for drivers is certainly another way to tackle the problem -- but it has the problem that it shifts blame for the massive head injuries to the drivers that hit the motorcyclists.

It's arguable that, if you ride without proper protection, you're a stupidhead and anything that happens to you is your own idiot fault. Certainly, as a car (and motorcycle) driver, I don't want to assume liability for those idiots who choose to be stupid.

On the other hand, it seems really stupid to a libertarian (small "L") like me to legislate self-destructive behavior.

I agree about not giving legislative powers to the insurance companies. It still gets my goat, a decade later.

Re:No surprise

[pjrc]

.... perfectly justifiable in many cases. Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

In this case, the application being restricted is not one Microsoft built. Microsoft only made the compiler (Visual FoxPro). The restriction is that applications built using their compiler and including its runtime libraries are supposedly restricted from being used on non-windows systems.

So they really have no "quality control" justification in this case, since Microsoft is only the author of the tool, not the developer of the application who would "take the heat" if it did not work.

Re:No surprise

[fermion]

It is certainly no surprise or anyone that has used FoxPro for many years. FoxPro itself is beautiful database technology that MS bought to acquire the incredible Rushmore technology. The MS (jet?) technology was crap by comparison.

Equally amazing was that MS supported FoxPro for Macintosh and Windows, and even more incredibly, they kept it running on both platforms when the created Visual Foxpro(VFP). Now, credit where credit is due. VFP is an incredible RAD environment. It is very easy to code complex business models and rules. By comparison, Access is a toy. It did not have the power and it did not have the cross platform capabilities. Access was fine for the manager who wanted to create a database of employees that spent too much time in the bathroom, but not for much else.

I think they were hoping that with the full integration of Rushmore technology into Access, which was maybe the 95 version, people would migrate. Did not happen. VFP was cross platform development(with the exception of report development) and runtime. It was fast, it was simple, it was effective. Access was not.

Now, if MS was in businesses of provided tool for customers, MS would have continued to support VFP for Windows, Mac, and today we would probably have a VFP for Linux. But, alas, MS is the business of maintaining a monopoly, and as such they made VFP a windows only product.

Which is why the do not want VFP to run in Linux. They want their tools to run on Windows only. They already fought the battle to make VFP single platform, They don't want to fight it again. (As an aside the viewpoint of MS can be seen by their definition of cross-platform, which means the application can run of different versions of windows, which, to an outside observer, is reasonable a single platform.)

Re:No surprise

[RoLi]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document...

Well, anywhere where even the most basic consumer protection laws exist (= everywhere outside the USA), a contract that is agreed upon after the purchase was made is invalid and completely void.

Also, some courts in Germany have ruled that Microsoft has no right to legally bind an OS to a computer, the consumer must have the right to resell computer and OS-license seperately, so I guess they wouldn't have the right to bind FoxPro to Windows even if the EULA was legally binding.

But even in the USA, the pathetic remains of consumer protection should prevent Microsoft from legally binding Foxpro to Windows: Anti-Trust laws are pretty clear on that.

Let's say, for example, that a bug in FoxPro is found that represents a security risk - MS can use Windows Update and other means to get a patch out to their Windows-based customers, but what do they do for the WINE-rs? That's a loose end that I certainly wouldn't want to deal with...

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe it. Are you working for MS? This is such obvious nonsense - if that were true, MS would have to force Windows update on everyone, make sure everyone has an Internet connection and force every update down the throats of customers. (Yes, MS would certainly like it that way, sure.)

Re:No surprise

[RoLi]

Thats fine when you're not a bona fide monopoly.

Wrong, it's not fine. One of the basic principles of free societies (certainly not the USA, but almost everywhere else) is that a vendor does not have the right to dictate how his goods have to be used.

Yes, this includes Microsoft binding OEM-Windows to certain computers, yes, in Europe and most parts of the world selling OEM-Windows and computers seperately is 100% legal.

The biggest mistake the US DOJ made was calling MS a monopoly. This just opened the gates to the meta-discussion about wether MS is a monopoly or not which overcovered the real problems. Thankfully, the EU courts call MS what they clearly are: Holding and misusing a dominating position. Maybe the MS-bootlickers and MS-is-a-monopoly wankers can finally crawl back under their respective rocks.

Re:No surprise

[dcuny]

[Fox Pro programmers] live in a world disconnected from reality as we know it (which is why they haven't upgraded to a reasonably new database technology and support language)

Like those people who cling to C, C++, VB, Java and all those other non-.NET technologies?

[and] would probably blame microsoft for all kinds of problems that were OS related and not product related.

Is this speculation based on anything?

I also get the impression from people that developed fox pro that the users were upset when MS bought the product and were upset when they made it a "visual" lanugage.

My own "impression" was that FoxPro developers felt that Microsoft purchased FoxPro for the Rushmore technology and to convert FoxPro developers to Access, which (by your own description) is pretty much the way it's played out.

That said, I can't imagine that MS hasn't thought about possible lost OS license sales and that the lost sales aren't a major motivator for clamping down on the howto.

So FoxPro exists not for developers to create applications, but for Microsoft to lock users onto the Windows platform?

Re:No surprise

[msborg]

I'm sure you haven't. FoxPro hasn't been around for 8 years. Visual FoxPro is a totally different, object-oriented development tool with a killer data engine. It's so good that it is the only reason I use Windows at all.

Re:No surprise

[msborg]

Also, the EULA requires that you distribute the files with a EULA that is at least as restrictive as the Microsoft EULA. It doesn't, however, require you to enforce that EULA if your client breaks it. So give the runtimes to your client, let 'em install them on thousands of desktops running Linux/Wine, and then let them be. The client has no contract with Microsoft regarding this, so Microsoft can't sue them. And you've upheld your end of the EULA, since you passed on as restrictive a EULA as Microsoft imposed on you.

Re:No surprise

[cyberformer]

are you saying that MS should be allowed to say you can't firewall their products?

Microsoft probably will add that as a restriction in some of its EULAs, if it hasn't already done so. It may not be legally binding, but a few well-placed campaign contributions will change that (UCITA). With Palladium, they will even be able to enforce it automatically: software simply won't run until Microsoft's central database confirms that your license is still valid.

Re:No surprise

[msborg]

This has far more grave consequences than what the VFP developer community has seen. It is the start of locking down Windows.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have lots of clients who run my VFP apps on desktops, and they have to pay for a Windows license for each machine. If they replaced them all with Linux/Wine systems, they could run their app without having to pay Microsoft a single dime in license fees. That's what they are afraid of - people who aren't locked into the Windows OS to run their businesses.

Re:No surprise

[cyberformer]

It should depend on whose fault the actual accident is. In the (rare) case that a motorcyclist actually crashes into a car, the driver of the car shouldn't be liable.

In the (more likely) case that a motorcyclist is hit by a car, the car driver should be held responsible. Requiring the motorcyclist to wear a helmet is just like requiring all kids to wear a flack jacket as a protection against school shootings, or blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

I'm not saying that riding a motorcyle without a helmet is a particularly good idea, but people shouldn't be forced by law to protect themselves from others, even if such protection is very advisable.

Re:No surprise

[ackthpt]

Also, the EULA requires that you distribute the files with a EULA that is at least as restrictive as the Microsoft EULA. It doesn't, however, require you to enforce that EULA if your client breaks it. So give the runtimes to your client, let 'em install them on thousands of desktops running Linux/Wine, and then let them be. The client has no contract with Microsoft regarding this, so Microsoft can't sue them. And you've upheld your end of the EULA, since you passed on as restrictive a EULA as Microsoft imposed on you.

Sort of a 'EULA: All your base are belong to us.'

Re:No surprise

[ToughRat]

VFP is fully object-oriented; had the ado recordset engine 3 years before the rest of MS (because the team that wrote the vfp data engine then went on to write the ado recordset engine); handles xml transparently; publishes web services with a couple of clicks; registers web services in intellisense; has event binding for COM objects as well as all events/methods in VFP itself; etc.

The reality from which we are disconnected is the one in which you have to work very hard to get things done.

I was active with FoxPro when MS bought out Dr. Dave. Our (the beta testers of that current version) were pretty happy about it: we saw Windows getting better, hardware (needed to run Windows) getting better, and figured the product would evolve into something pretty special, which it has.

There is no development environment, MS or FOSS, as productive; and I wish there were. Running VFP executables on Linux would be ideal: a lot of developers in developing countries use VFP, because of its productivity, and the native data engine (which can easily upgraded to a c/s backend -- in the case of the framework we use, by simply setting flags). This would be a great benefit for them. And of course you're right, it is very likely that MS wants to prevent loss of OS sales. Between CodeWeaver and Wine, who's going to need an MS OS?

Re:No surprise

[malfunct]

My speculation is based on stories the fox pro developers have mentioned when we talked (I know 2 or 3 of the people responsible for the product before it was owned by MS) and the way they talked about the users.

As far as MS using it to lock people into windows I would say yeah, a bit of the reason it still exists is to keep those users on MS products. It would have died long ago if MS would have been successful converting the people who use fox pro over to thier other technologies.

Re:No surprise

[WNight]

But, you don't cost MS anything by using Linux, you only don't make them any money. This is a crucial difference. So far, it's still legal to choose not to do business with someone.

And yes, I did two hardware swaps recently, upgrading two test machines from P2-99 motherboards to CUV4X motherboards, with roughly the safe stuff. Redhat 7.3 detected it perfectly and worked without a tweak. Win2k was bitching like crazy and I may have to reinstall to get it to work correctly. But yeah, Linux is hard to install...

Re:No surprise

[WNight]

EULAs aren't legally binding. They might be, if they were part of an online purchase, but in the form we see them, as shrinkwrap licenses there's *no* legal precedent that would suggets they're legal.

The legal agreement is that the product does what is claimed on the box. If MS doesn't claim that VFP works under WINE you don't have the right to complain when it doesn't.

Re:No surprise

[1u3hr]

Of course the game is control. If Microsoft doesn't control the environment that their product is running in, then how can they possibly support it? Afterall, people have a way of blaming Microsoft for other people's problems.

So they can decline to support it. In any case, the products in question are not so much FoxPro itself, but packaged applications that are written, sold and supported by FoxPro programmers, not MS. MS wants to make these illegal to run on anything but Windows.

Re:No surprise

[grahammm]

There was a case a few years ago of a company putting a 'time bomb' in their software which triggered if the user did not renew the support contract. The courts hung them out to dry big time. So would MS not suffer the same fate having to pay large damages to the affected users?

Re:No surprise

[deaddrunk]

It's your taxes that pay for the emergency services to scrape said stupidhead off the road though.....

Re:No surprise

[be-fan]

Wow. This reminds me of the GCC FUD that is sometimes spread. You used to occasionally hear "GCC requires the output to be GPL" or something like that. That was preposterous, and this seems just as stupid.

Re:No surprise

[awol]

The correct solution (in the sense of being minimally intrusive while solving the problem) would have been to legally limit the liability of car drivers who hit helmetless motorcyclists.

Er, well not "correct", even given your rider of "minimally intrusive". The limitation of liability is rarely a good thing (leave out punitive damages which is a peculiarly American problem where limits might well be a good thing :-). If you evaluate damage objectively but arbitrarily cap the amount of that damage for which any person is liable you end up with these horrible diseconomies where it makes commercial sense for people to offend since the liability cap is constrained it may well be less than the cost of fixing the original problem (car safety is the classic example here).

The correct approach is to correctly identify that the (helmet wearing or not) motor cyclist is a contributing factor to the amount of damage that is incurred (to all the cyclists, this isn't a flame just a fact), that is, if you hit a cyclist you are likely to cause them more damage than if you hit a car driver, and then discount the amount of damages accordingly. That way you end up with a more reasonably liability, but no limit for the truly culpable.

To draw this idea back to the original point about reasonableness of restriction in an EULA, it seems to me that such restrictions are not valid but that the same idea of contributory negligence (negligence is really the wrong word but it will do) would provide all the defence necessary to avoid the vendor sufferring for people using the product inappropriately.

Now, as for the extent to which "inappropriate use" of a product is a defence for liability, it certainly seems the case that certain jurisdictions have lost the plot in this area but the rectification of that issue is quite separate from the goodness of the idea in general :-P

Re:No surprise

[Sj0]

It's not really reasonable or justifiable at all. We're not talking about a README here, we're talking about a document saying "if you don't do things our way, we'll take away your license to the software, in spite of the fact that you paid for it". To be honest, there are very, very few things that would be reasonable or justifiable to put in that EULA. In this case, it's tantamount to blackmail. "I don't think you want to be using this software on an alternate OS, because your rather expensive software licenses might have....an unfortunate accident?"...

Personally, I think this kind of thing should have been covered back when MS was in court (before their 50 lashes with a feather those pansies called a punishment), because MS is famous for it's legal wranglings. Part of the court case should have put forth a remedy that would severely limit it's ability to twist the law into breaking their competition...

Re:No surprise

[grahamm]

Unless word has changed recently, you cannot even guarantee that .doc files will be some when opened on another computer running the same version of both Windows and Word. If the authoring system has 'printer X' and the recipient has 'printer Y' then the layout may well be different when printed on the 2 systems.

Re:No surprise

[Sj0]

You don't seem to understand the difference between a EULA, a README, and a disclaimer.

Here's the deal:

If you break the EULA, you no longer own the software. Read it. They can take away your license with extreme prejudice if you break any of the stipulations within.

If you ignore a README, you're a little more ignorant, but nothing happens. MS certainly can't take away your software!

If you ignore a disclaimer, you can't bitch at MS if Foxpro stops working, or if WINE won't let you print, or any such thing. They'll just say "sorry, what you did isn't supported, so we don't have to help you!" if you call, just like they've done in the past.

Now. If you don't want to be liable if something happens to foxpro? Which do you put it under? the README if you're lazy, the disclaimer if you're serious, but not the EULA unless you're nuts.

Also, you don't seem to be familiar with Windows update. Let me enlighten you. Windows update updates windows. It doesn't update Office. It doesn't update Visual Studio. It doesn't update Freelancer or Halo or Flight Simulator or anything else. In fact, for anything except windows or office (which has it's own officeupdate site), you're more than likely going to have to download patches like everyone else out there (except that once you get rid of the nifty auto-detection, you'll find that MS has some of the most labyrinthine patch sites on the internet).

Re:No surprise

[guybarr]

It is not the slightest bit reasonable ever for a company to be able to control how you use their product after you have given them money in return for the right of such use.

Not to control how you use it directly, of course, but it's definately reasonable to control the limits of their own waranty and support .

E.g., If I were to sell you an screwdriver, It is reasonable for me to warn you not to shove it up your nose, and to decline any support or waranty in such a case.

Of course, you paid for it, so you can do whatever you like with it.

Re:No surprise

[Mr. Shiny And New]

I disagree. People have shown time and time again that they are incapable of making proper decisions for themselves, even when it comes to things like personal safety and survival. So, the government steps in to legislate things like seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. The good of wearing a motorcycle helmet is that it protects the rider from many types of accidents, not just the ones where the rider is at fault, or where another driver is at fault.

One rationale is that many governments provide services like welfare or social assitance or employment insurance or medicare. It costs the system money to help people with these services; if you can legislate a saftey device which will keep people healthy and working, it makes sense to do so, regardless of the private insurance costs.

You can argue about freedom of choice, etc. But I say that certain choices you don't have the right to make, you only have the priveledge. Just like we don't let children do things that they are not mature enough to handle, we don't let adults do things that they have shown to be unable to do. Making saftey decisions is one thing where the government has to step in to re-inforce our pitiful skills.

Re:No surprise

[arkanes]

Well, I don't feel like arguing the legal power of EULAs here - this has to do with the moral right of a company to do this sort of thing. And MS doesn't jack to do with WINE support - they don't even have to think about it. Anyone who is going to run any MS product under WINE isn't going to get any help from MS, and that's all they need to know. An attempt (legally enforcable or not) to prevent people from doing it is reprehensible, and there is NO justification for it whatsoever beyond an attempt to bind applications to Windows that don't need to be.

FYI, you can't get patches to VFP through windows update.

This is a very simple concept - MS has no obligation to people using WINE. None. Zero. Zilch. It doesn't matter that they can't get patches via Windows Update. They're running on an unsupported OS, and that means UNSUPPORTED. It's very simple. You think they're threatning people with legal action because they want to make sure they get support? I can't help but think you're being intentionally blind.

Re:No surprise

[jmertic]

Mod Parent Up

The biggest asset of VFP is it's incredible RAD environment. We have several in-house systems running VFP 6/7 ( including one shipping product ) and even some older Foxpro 2.6 ( DOS and Windows ) apps. For the small business ( say 8-10 users ), VFP fits perfectly; easy to use IDE, powerful SQL language tools, integrated database, and COM interaction make it very unique not only in the windows world, but also on any platform, especially Linux. Microsoft knows this, and if VFP could run on Linux, I know one shop I could convert ;->. Not letting it run helps Microsoft dominate that market.

Re:No surprise

[EricWright]

People have shown time and time again that they are incapable of making proper decisions for themselves, even when it comes to things like personal safety and survival.

There's a term for this in nature... it's called natural selection. Why should responsible people have to hand over more money to the government so it can hand-hold and babysit the irresponsible?
--

Re:No surprise

[Daengbo]

The correct approach is to correctly identify that the (helmet wearing or not) motor cyclist is a contributing factor to the amount of damage that is incurred (to all the cyclists, this isn't a flame just a fact), that is, if you hit a cyclist you are likely to cause them more damage than if you hit a car driver, and then discount the amount of damages accordingly.
So if I just side-swipe them it's free? And I can get away with that? I'm going for a drive!

Re:No surprise

[kamend]

So there you go, "all MS end users should wear helmets".

Re:No surprise

[Mr. Shiny And New]

Well, unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your point of view), we as a society don't seem to value the laws of nature anymore, so we don't let people die of stupidity. Instead we prop them up with government-assistance. So we can either prop them up with government-assitance after they split their heads open on the pavement, or we can prop them up by legislating saftey devices. It's cleaner that way.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, btw. But maybe we can look at it from a higher level: if fewer people die or are injured in accidents, maybe society is better off (somehow). That means that our society can survive, while other societies that have more problems will not. I dunno :)

Re:No surprise

[parnasus]

Speaking only from personal experience, drivers of any vehicle type (car, motorcycle, etc.) treat the road as if they own it. Car drivers get ticked off when motorcyclists can squeeze through traffic jams, motorcyclists think just because they can fit between two cars they should, and many drivers in general think everyone else is out there to get in "my" way.

I've seen some crazy stuff out there. Motorcyclists will accelerate like the Devil himself was on their tail and weave in and out of traffic like they were cafe racers. Generally, it's the 20-something with a brand new Honda who has no respect for the power of the machine he's on. I've seen cars deliberately pull out in front of other vehicles they think are going to fast. It's nuts out there.

Most car-motorcycle crashes are legally the fault of the driver of the car

. I suppose that's possible, but my experience doesn't bear that out. It seems to me everyone has forgotten what they were taught in driving school.

Re:No surprise

[JASegler]

Although I didn't post the slam...
Unfortunately I *have* used FoxPro and Visual Fox Pro.

At a previous company we went through the transition from FP to VFP 3. It was the buggiest crappiest POS you could ever imagine.

We made an agreement with our manager. If this list of critical bugs gets fixed in VFP 5, we'll stay with it. Otherwise we are switching to VB.

I learned alot of VB at that company and can say I never had anywhere near the issues in VB that I had in VFP.

Also, whenever we called MS on a VFP issue the standard response was that's a known issue with no work around. MS has always considered FP it's bastard step-child. They couldn't say they were going to bury it.. But they really never fed it or kept it real healthy either.

BTW, versions I have used:
FP 2.6, VFP 3+5.
VB 3-6.

-Jerry

Re:No surprise

[msborg]

Gotta agree with you on VFP 3.0. Blame it on the Microsoft versioning system - it really was a 1.0 release. I mean, except for the menus and reports, every single thing about the product was re-written. 5.0 was a bug fix release, 6.0 improved stability, and 7.0 and the recently-released 8.0 are rock-solid. In fact, I found the alpha of 8.0 to be more stable than the released version of 6.0!

Re:No surprise

[stephanruby]

Most car-motorcycle crashes are legally the fault of the driver of the car - if you must find fault.

I guess this claim makes sense, but it would be nice to see some statistics backing this up. It would be better still to have a detailed breakdown of each cause of the accidents. Was the driver drunk? Did the driver look over his shoulder? Was the impaired view of the car-driver related to his specific model of automobile? etc.

Re:No surprise

[epmos]

The UCITA fixes that problem, "Self Help" is now legal.

Dont' you love the new name? I vote that we all call theft of physical property "Self Help" from now on. That would be equally stupid.

Re:No surprise

[epmos]

Actually, both the fed and most states collect such information.

Look at www.google.com/unclesam and you can find lots of information.

And motorcyclecar accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of the automobile driver. When motorcycle accidents are the rider's fault, they usually don't involve another vehicle.

NOTE: I am a motorcyclist, and I support helmet laws. Why? For the same reason I support seatbelt laws, gun licenses, driver licenses, etc. People who are injured become a drain on public resources. Therefore the public has a vested intrest in taking reasonable measures in limiting such injuries. Also, motorcycle usage on public right-of-ways (roads or not) make use of a limited public resource. Reasonable regulation of such usage is a legitimate role of the government.

It's the defintion of 'reasonable' in both cases that causes the most disagreement, in case you were wondering.

Alcohol, drugs and excessive speed are killers on a motorcycle, but you usually run off the road, fall over or collide with a stationary object instead of a car.

I am a motorcyclist, and I *NEVER* ride without a helmet, jacket, motorcycle boots, gloves and long pants. The helmet has a halo, and my bike and gear is bright colors instead of black and I have retro-reflective bits plastered everywhere. All so that I am more visible to other drivers.

It's just not worth the risk otherwise.

Try to remember: Shiny Side Up.

Now those links:
MA -- "Automobile drivers-not motorcyclists-are responsible for more than two-thirds of car-motorcycle crashes"
http://www.state.ma.us/rmv/motorcycle/ti ps.htm .Mil -- Lots, they gather a lot of information, and members of the armed services must take a saftey class in order to ride. Here's a sample. --"More than half of the motorcycle mishaps were caused by the other driver failing to yield to the cyclist, and like the fatal mishap, turned in front of the motorcycle rider"
http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/ back/200 1/0101/yirgrnd.htm
http://www.per.hqusareur.army. mil/services/safety/ NewSafety/motorcycle/_PRIVATE/motorcycle_survival_ skills.htm

IN -"John Bodeker, coordinator of the Indiana Department of Education's Motorcycle Operator Safety Education Program, said that in most accidents involving a car and a motorcycle, the car driver is at fault because he or she either did not see the motorcycle or misjudged its speed."
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/reed/newsr /99April/ motorsafety.htm

Re:No surprise

[tomhudson]

You always own your copy of the software. Click-thru EULAs have never been binding on anyone, as they are post-purchase attempts to impose a contract. Not only are they unenforceable from both a legal and practical standpoint, they contain disclaimers that specifically state that any provision in it that runs contrary to local (state/provincial/whatever) law is void (so as not to render the whole copyright void).

Secondly, unless you purchased the software directly from the manufacturer, the only contract is between you and the place you purchased it.

Third, unless you SIGNED it (a click-through cannot be produced as an exhibit in court, after all) and remitted a physical copy to the vendor, a click-through is unenforceable. After all, they would have to submit documentation for any claim of violation of contract. This would include a copy of the contract itself, duly agreed to by both parties.

Not to continue beating a dead horse for much longer but, lastly, they cannot "take away your software with extreme prejudice". The courts have ruled on that in the past. See Title 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 18 Section 2319 (Criminal Infringement of a Copyright) and related, for more info. on what actually constitutes a misdemeanor vs a felony. No provision is made therein for using a program in a manner other than that which the vendor envisioned at the time of sale, as being an offense. It's not a crime, dude, and they have no recourse, either civil or criminal. Any threats of same are a criminal act (intimidation). Sue the bastards!

Damaging your data (or rendering it unreadable/inoperative) is a vilation of yourcopyright, and becomes an offense under the same law.

Re:No surprise

[Sj0]

If there was absolutely no threat from EULAs whatsoever, this thread wouldn't exist, and that guy wouldn't have recieved a call from an MIB. but as it stands, the Software industry seems to think that they are still appropriate, so rhetorically speaking, if one were to be held up in court, it would be a breech of contract law, not criminal law, which would be in question. Since technically, the license is your ticket to the copyright, and the only thing a software company can demand would be to revoke your right to use the software, and the general wording of the contract itself generally seems to support that action above anything else.

Why do you believe the contract being declared void would negate their copyright? It seems to be that the worst-case scenario for a piece of software would be being dropped back into US/Berne Convention copyrights, thereby making the software a little more free to work on, but still making copyright infringement illegal. I haven't seen any precident or piece of law stating that copyrights are to be stripped on a work whose license agreement isn't legal.

Re:No surprise

[tomhudson]

That's my point - using software that you bought in ways that Microsoft didn't intend is not in and of itself a copyright violation. If I choose to use their software as coasters at my next party, they have no say in the matter.

Picture a book - if I use it to keep a door open, that's my business - it's not a copyright violation, and the publisher has no say, and cannot unilaterally revoke my right to use my copy as appropriate.

Running FoxPro under Linux is not a copyright violation per se. They may view it as a violation of their EULA, but shrinkwrap EULAs are not valid :-)

Wait...

[Sheetrock]

Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment? I haven't used FoxPro since Microsoft bought it out, but I've heard that's a pretty common term with at least some of their EULAs.

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's TCP stack was based on one of the *BSDs, and IE had its roots in Mosaic. There is no GNU-bitching about this, imagine that.

Re:Wait...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment?

Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?

> I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own...

The GPL has absolutely no "use" restrictions. If you do not plan to redistribute GPL software, the GPL has absolutely no effect on you.

Re:Wait...

[Relic of the Future]

"I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft [...] copied our stuff into their stuff."

Then you don't understand many Open Source developers. You do know that Window's TCP stack is based on BSD, right?

Re:Wait...

[Glock27]

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff.

Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...

This strikes me as ridiculous, but there is a nice alternative - don't use FoxPro. Perhaps initially painful, but in the end quite rewarding! ;-)

Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

I'd suggest one of the many DBs available for Linux + JDBC + Java 1.4x + NetBeans/Eclipse. :-)

Re:Wait...

[Greg Lindahl]

You do know that Window's TCP stack is based on BSD, right?

I've seen that said, and denied by MS. Are you sure you aren't repeating bogus info? Certainly the MS TCP/IP stack had many bugs not in the BSD stack.

Re:Wait...

[theLOUDroom]

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?

Actually, they'd be thrilled (assuming the stuff is GLP'ed). That would mean the Microsoft would have to release the source code to whatever application they used it in.

Also, no one is talking about pirating MS software here. They're talking about using legally purchased copies of it on a non-MS operating system.

Re:Wait...

[gordie]

Sorry AC, anyone that knows anything about wine and the wine project Wine HQ knows that "Wine is not am emulator!" per the wine project FAQ

Re:Wait...

[hmckee]

Sure that could be part of their EULA, but this will bring up the age old debate, who really owns the software after it is sold? What rights does the user have when running it?

This could become really tricky for Microsoft and Mono when and if .NET starts to become big. Can Microsoft prohibit .NET applications from running on non-MS OS's? It seems rather foolish for them to start pulling stuff like this if they plan on inplementing their CLR on multiple platforms.

Also, it could be the case that the libraries used by VFP are not freely redistributable to other machines unless that machine contains a licensed version of VFP. Yes, I read the summary article, but that point was still not clear.

As for Open Source projects, I think most developers would be happy to see MS using their projects as long as they released any modified source code. Imagine that a MS operating system release with only Open Source software on top of the OS.

Re:Wait...

[wolf-]

They aren't copying it "into".
They are copying it "onto".

Microsoft is effectively tying the application to a particular OS. By making you agree to not use the older version, they are attempting to negate the existing user base on alternative OS.

Re:Wait...

[frodo from middle ea]

And then you do know that the BSD license explicitly allows this kind of work. If you are using a product licensed under BSD type license then you CAN develop based on top of it and release your product as a closed source/proprietory application.
If you have any issues with that then you can take them to the ppl. who release their products under BSD* licenses.
Any body in M$ position would exploit the situation.

Re:Wait...

[RTPMatt]

Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?

Quite clearly you have no idea what the word 'convicted' means in the US. you cant really expect to be convicted of smething if you have money!

Re:Wait...

[msborg]

It is a recent addition to the EULA for Visual FoxPro. Prior to version 7, there was no such restriction. There is no technical reason for this restriction. The only explanation is to quash the viability of Linux on the desktop.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that you're wrong, right?

Windows 3.1 had a TCP/IP stack based on BSD, but that isn't the case for 32-bit Windows versions. Since then it is just a few utilities like ping and tracer[ou]t[e] that use BSD code.

It also wasn't Microsoft that used it originally; it was licensed from a third party that ported much of the BSD stuff to Windows.

Re:Wait...

[edward.virtually@pob]

>Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?

Yes, and yes. But unfortunately Bush got selected and told the DoJ to play dead, so it doesn't matter. The game is over, thought most don't understand that yet.

Re:Wait...

[Relic of the Future]

MS has certianly used BSD code. And you can check for yourself on your own MS box. Are you familiar with the program "strings", which will find and display all character strings in a file? Try running it on:

1. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
2. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
3. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
4. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
5. C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE

(FYI, "Regents of the University of California" = U C Berkley = where BSD came from, and, yes, they encourage this sort of thing.)

Where did you see MS deny they had done this?

(I got that list from this page, since I'm too lazy to boot back to windows to check again myself.)

Re:Wait...

[angle_slam]

This isn't tying. Tying would be including FoxPro with Windows. This is restricting FoxPro to Windows. Huge difference.

Re:Wait...

[Greg Lindahl]

Which word in "TCP Stack" do you not understand?

User level programs are not the TCP stack.

Re:Wait...

[_Sprocket_]

I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff.

You'd be shocked to find out Microsoft does indeed sell products that include applications licensed under the GPL.

Re:Wait...

[djpig]

Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...

Yeah. I have to work on one Windows PC sometimes, due to some MS-Access database. But every time I'm thankfull for the people out there that made it possible to run my good ol' X under cygwin even on that PC.

When will MS at last start sponsoring WINE? ;)

Re:Wait...

[vsprintf]

This could become really tricky for Microsoft and Mono when and if .NET starts to become big. Can Microsoft prohibit .NET applications from running on non-MS OS's? It seems rather foolish for them to start pulling stuff like this if they plan on inplementing their CLR on multiple platforms.

But why not? If they can gain a majority of the market with .NYET, why shouldn't they then try to pull the plug and enforce something similar? I mean it's not like they are concerned with ethics.

Remember, insurance companies are not in business to pay claims. They are really in the premium collection business. MS is not in business to provide users with reasonable, useable software. MS is in the software licensing business, and it's old methods (bad as they were) were not providing the constant revenue increases needed to keep the stock price pumped.

Look for more and more license games and restrictions as MS tries to inflate that bottom line.

Re:Wait...

[thenextpresident]

> Wasn't MicroSoft convicted for antitrust violations? Isn't "tying" a violation of antitrust laws?

Yes, and so is not reading the article.

It's not that you must run VFP on Windows, but that their is some confusion as to whether that's the case. What seems to be the case is that you can't run VFP on Linux without the appropriate license.

The original phone call lasted all of 90 seconds, and 2 other phone calls to two other developers clarified the issue somewhat.

Re:Wait...

[kalidasa]

And last I checked, the GPL doesn't restrict the use of GPL apps to GPL OSes: for instance, noone seems to mind that I run emacs on Windows.

Re:Wait...

[cyberformer]

It's compiling, not copying. You are perfectly free to use a GPL compiler to produce a closed-source program, and of course to run both the compiler and the code it produces on any platform at all.

Re:Wait...

[pyrrho]

winsock .h headers have the Berkeley header at top explaining parts of the code are from BSD.

If you have a Windows SDK installed, you can find it.

Additionally, it seems they grabbed some socket using applications as well.

Re:Wait...

[pyrrho]

all I know is the Win32 SDKs all have the BSD "parts are copyright by Berkeley" header still, implying that the winsock dlls contain that code.

Nothing wrong with it... why deny it?

Re:Wait...

[edward.virtually@pob]

Um, yes it is. To quote from here:

A tying arrangement is one in which the availability of one item (the 'tying' item) is conditioned upon purchase or rental of another item (the 'tied' item) or agreeing to not purchase the tied item from the seller's competitors.

In this case, the use of FoxPro is being illegally tied to the purchase or rental of Windows. Of course it doesn't really matter since the DoJ couldn't care less now about Microsoft's continued law breaking. They're too busy helping the MPAA and RIAA bully college students.

Re:Wait...

[WNight]

This is only a debate in the sense that the tobacco companies debate findings that cigarettes cause cancer.

The legal precedents are *very* clear. When you buy something, you own it. You have the right to use it in any legal fashion (decided by law, not by company claims) and to resell it. US copyright law includes a provision specifically allowing copies of software to be made, as required to allow the intended functioning of the product. If it needs to be copied onto the HD to run, and into RAM, then the company implicitly allowed this by offering it for sale and claiming it runs.

Re:Wait...

[angle_slam]

But it's only illegal tying if you're tying the purchase of an unwanted product to the purchase of a wanted product. In this case, it would be tying if, when you bought Windows, the dominant OS, you were forced to buy the database software. This is different. There are plenty of database products out there and FoxPro isn't even a big player in the database arena. Most software is specific to one platform.

Besides, if you were so anti-MS that you use Linux, why the hell would you buy FoxPro?

Re:Wait...

[edward.virtually@pob]

The wording was "availability" of the product being tied to the purchase of another product. Microsoft is tying the legal availability of FoxPro to the purchase of Windows. The point is that FoxPro ISN'T specific to one platform, technically speaking, and Microsoft's attempts to confine it are morally obnoxious and probably illegal. Microsoft has no right to tell the users of an application they've paid for what operating system they can use it with. Imagine if a company sold both cereal and bowls and tried to forbid you from using the cereal in anything but their bowls. Personally, I don't use FoxPro or care about it in particular. But the many people who do own it and want to use it on something other than Windows should not have to worry about being turned into the BSA (Microsoft's license police) for doing so.

Re:Wait...

[Rakarra]

all I know is the Win32 SDKs all have the BSD "parts are copyright by Berkeley" header still, implying that the winsock dlls contain that code.

Not necessarily, the winsock.h IS code. The interface in the header file is pure BSD for compatability, but that doesn't mean the implemenation in the dlls are.

Re:Wait...

[pyrrho]

possible.

I think they used BSD code. And I think that's the smart thing to have done. Public domain and near public domain is that way for a reason. Commercial companies should feel free to use it.

It's like W's DUI... it's not so much that he had a DUI, it's the denial itself that is the interesting part.

This has other implications for end users

[sisukapalli1]

Can end users be penalized if they run something that uses statically or dynamically liked VFP code on Linux? Say, I get a screensaver and I decide to run it on Wine, (but for some reason the screensaver uses some VFP code, don't ask me why or how :) ), do I get into trouble?

Or, am I being too paranoid?

S

Re:This has other implications for end users

[og_sh0x]

If it seems like it might be a problem, you're at least a candidate for a C&D Letter. Never underestimate the chilling effect.

Re:This has other implications for end users

[Descartes]

I think this is where the real contention is. Microsoft isn't going to press the issue about running VFP on linux because it's clearly anti-competitive. They will, however, try to stop their DLLs from being distributed to non Windows machines. Microsoft's distinction here is absurd. They want to force developers to distribute MS DLLs with their VFP software so that it is impossible to distribute software to non MS machines without violating the FoxPro EULA.

Re:This has other implications for end users

[jxa00]

You are being too paranoid.

One of the advantages with VFP has always been that the client app/exe/whatever is 100% license/royalty free. As opposed to a VB/SQL Server type solution where MS will clip the ticket on the number of seats the solution you provided takes up. (Or per processor if above 50 or 60 seats.)

As an aside MS has wanted to force VFP developers to VB or .NET for a while, but the community is very loyal (and vocal) as VFP is a damn good product.

The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

Wow. I'm impressed by this. VFP is like the elderly uncle that just won't die and vacate the den. The more Microsoft tries to kill it, the more momentum it gains.

The VFP user community is of course mostly responsible for this. Sites like UniversalThread have "kept the flame" going for many years, much to the chagrin of Certain People at MS that would very much like the thing to die and go away. This is the difference between VB (which got effectively killed with .NET) and VFP - the people who use it. They're a vociferous, dedicated and almost fanatical bunch. But they've gotten their way every single time.

I remember the endless threads back in the mid 90's on Usenet about how VFP was on the way out, to be replaced by VB and VC++. They're on their 8th version now, going strong. VB only got to 6, and MS never really solved its problems (VC++ is a different issue - it's actually used by Microsoft so they can't touch it). Guess who's laughing now.

And I doubt this time things will go differently.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Millionth Mogadishu]

I had no idea VFP had such a following. So what is it about VFP that inspires so much devotion among its users?

(An honest question, I really don't know much about it.)

Re:The beast that won't die

[Zepalesque]

"They're on their 8th version now"

Yes, but after a near re-write between versions 2.6 and 3.0, they then skipped right to version 5.0 to get its numbering scheme more current with the other visual studio products.

Re:The beast that won't die

[swb]

I had no idea VFP had such a following. So what is it about VFP that inspires so much devotion among its users?

I think the unflattering answer is there's a shitpile of small business applications written in Fox Pro by enterprising consultants that work well enough for the business owners who don't want to spend any more on them than they have to. They get sold periodic "updates" so they work with their new PCs sporting new OSs, but that's it.

I think the reason they never get ported to anything else is that nobody else can untangle the code in a timeframe that would make them any money, plus if they want periodic updates like new forms or something, FP is pretty easy to design them with where a web app or something would be a PITA.

Re:The beast that won't die

[samael]

The native database is incredibly fast (for databases under 2 Gig in size), it supports ODBC for non-native databases and it's interpreted which allows for very complex commands of various kinds.

It's very easy to do database stuff in it, it's OOP and it's GUI.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey don't be so surprised -- FoxPro is the descendant of dBase, and dBase was the dominant PC database platform of the 1980s. Many developers have 20 year old codebases on FoxPro, and it's not likely they are going to give that up just because BillG said so. Not to mention that since XBase is an evolutionary dead-end, so porting pretty much means rewrite.

In addition, MS can tell everyone to switch, but until they produce a migration tool or a converter, nobody's going to listen. They only pushed Java for about 6 months back in 1998, and still went to ridiclous efforts to come out with J# and JUMP and so on.

Re:The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

swb has a bit of it. Certainly there are thousands of VFP apps out there running in small and large businesses that are hard to port and get rid of (VFP redefined, IMO, the term "spaghetti code", even more so than VB).

But there's also a bit of what makes some software (BeOS, Amiga, vim, etc.) grab and keep a smallish but loving group of users that are willing to fight for their [tool|OS|whatever] and hold on for dear life.

VFP is unique among MS products in that regard. VB had a faithful following, but it was always too big and too loud and too contaminated by weekend "programmers" to have an effect over the company. VFP folks - they're the Mujahedin of Microsoft users. Trust me, you don't want end up surrounded in a newsgroup by six angry VFP knights in shining armor with issues and a grudge. Talk about flame wars.

I mentioned those Usenet threads in my original post - I'll eat my crow now but back then I thought they were on crack for being so vocal about a tool that everyone else saw as dying (like BSD *grin*). Plus, the "inside word" from Microsoft at the time (~1997) was that VFP was indeed going to be killed. Haha - Not.

That's life, I guess.

Re:The beast that won't die

[horsie]

Of course! I got my current position because I knew how to program in Fox... and I'm in a company that employs close to 28K employees in the US alone. Although we are dangerously close to hitting the 2GB filesize limits... VFP is still doing a lot of processing for us here.

There are tons of VFP applications still going strong these days.

Re:The beast that won't die

[the_other_one]

That near re-write between version 2.6 and 3.0 is the reason that I will never ever ever again use a Microsoft Development platform.

Before Fox Software Sold out they strongly stressed the importance of backwards compatibility. This was one of the reasons why we picked FoxPro. Our application was a large financial database pplication with hundreds of screen files in the user interface.

After Microsoft bought Fox Software they created this abortion called VFP 3.0. Nothing in the user interface was backwardly compatible. The UI would have to be completely rewritten if we ever got funding. If we did get funding for a rewrite we vowed that we would not use anything from Microsoft. We never did get funding. We ran along earning a meager living off the maintennance contracts of previously installed clients for a few years. Unable to sell our product we were layed off one by one.

If you develop on Microsoft do not trust them to guarantee the continued existance of your development platform.

I now work for a former direct competitor that chose Progress as a patform. Sweet platform.

Re:The beast that won't die

[SecretAsianMan]

VB (which got effectively killed with .NET)

That's odd... I seem to recall a new version of VB being part of .NET, called something similar to VB.NET. I would hardly call that "killed".

VFP - the people who use it. They're a vociferous, dedicated and almost fanatical bunch

There has to be something wrong with them if they're still using that steaming pile of horse manure. VFP will give even a good programmer nightmares. Anybody in the mood for spaghetti?

They're on their 8th version now, going strong. VB only got to 6

Even if that was true (it's not), you've just advertised yourself as being a total poser by falling for the myth that version numbers of different products can be compared. Oops. What's Emacs up to now, version 42? With that version number it probably cures cancer.

Guess who's laughing now.

Me. At you.

Re:The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

That's odd... I seem to recall a new version of VB being part of .NET

Here's a free clue: VB.NET != VB7. Let me know when you can port your code verbatim into VB.NET and we'll talk.

Right off the bat, you just fucked up your elegant flame. Feeling stupid already?

Even if that was true (it's not)

My, my. Did I get you all riled up because of this? Yes, they skipped versions. Big fucking deal.

total poser

Bwahahaha. I guess that must be true, since "SecretAsianMan" says so. "Poser", that's quite a word. You must be fresh out of high school.

Me. At you.

Well now, that hurts.

Re:The beast that won't die

[msborg]

The VFP user community is of course mostly responsible for this.

Exactly. You can't imagine the number of times that we have been told by Microsoft to move to VB, VC++, Windows DNA, .Net, or whatever the flavor of the month is at Redmond. And I must say to those who think that VFP is simply the old FoxPro with the word "Visual" tacked on: you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I program in Java and Python, and I have to say that VFP's object model is just as strong as either of those languages. I've written 3-tier apps against MySQL backends with web interfaces, simply because the VFP object model makes programming business objects so clean and easy.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Tacky the Penguin]

So what is it about VFP that inspires so much devotion among its users?

Someone already mentioned the tons of applications that use VFP. I have a couple clients that are still running applications under FoxPro 2.6 for DOS. It isn't pretty, but it is robust and fast. (Actually, to be honest, the original application was written for dBase III, and we modified it to run quickly under Foxpro.)

FoxPro isn't just a database. It's a data-centric language. Instead of choosing something like VB or C for the front end, choosing MySQL or MS SQL for the backend, and maybe something like R&R for reports, it's handy to have everything wrapped up in one neat little package.

Getting back to the old code - who wants to port it to something else? It's easy to take code written in something really old like the original dBase, FoxBase, Quicksilver, or Clipper, feed it into the latest version of VFP, and watch it run. There might be a little tweaking to do, but it'll run without a problem.

Look at it this way. When do you expect ForTran or Cobol to die? FoxPro is to the 80s business software what Cobol is to the '60s and '70s software.

A bit of esprit de corps comes into play, too. When FoxPro 2.0 came out, it was the fastest thing around (advertised as beating a Vax). Truly, I have written programs on a 286 or 386 that are faster than some of the newer stuff that runs on the modern gigahertz chips. If you know what you're doing (Rushmore Optomization), you can get a whole lot of speed from slower machines, and handle complex queries in huge databases with faster machines. That data essentially comes up instantly. I don't know if anything else out there has match the speed of FoxPro yet, but I find things like MS SQL to be rather sluggish -- even with small databases.

Of course, admitedly, a whole lot of us know the product inside and out, and don't want to have to fumble around with something else. I ended up spending a whole lot of time writing applications in JavaScript that I would have written practically without thinking in FoxPro.

Finally, VFP has managed to keep up with technology. While it will run ancient code, it is also web-enabled, is a true OOP language, can use other applications via ActiveX, and can talk to all those other databases via ODBC.

In short, it's not just a language or database. It's an entire environment that needs little else for most applications.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Tablizer]

Not to mention that since XBase is an evolutionary dead-end, so porting pretty much means rewrite.

For cranking out smallesh RAD applications, it is hard to beat XBase. I agree that the language does not scale that large, but the way it puts you "inside" the data tables instead of just accessing it through API's is a unique experience that is hard to compare to anything else. It is like you are swimming inside of data tables. It has an amazing ability to turn command-line experiments into working routines with little or no rewrite.

I would not mind some XBase contracts to visit the "old friend" at all. It is my favorite "legacy" language.

Re:The beast that won't die

[cruachan]

"and can talk to all those other databases via ODBC."

My one experience of this was quite nasty in that we had a legasy app using foxpro back and front ends that we needed to convert so the data would run inside sqlserver (to integrate it with the rest of the business) and leave the front end in vfp. In theory just a case or ripping out the direct data accesses and replace it by odbc calls.

Now I'm not a vfp expert and wouldn't pretend tpo be, but I found this a nightmare, predomonantly because a modern rdbms like sqlserver is not compatible with the old vfp data/index file way of doing things. Much of the code inside the app used indexes to sort data views, process through datasets etc, all of which needed to be rewritten for an environment where indexes are not directly accessible.

We eventually did get it running, but it wasn't pretty.

Re:The beast that won't die

[SecretAsianMan]

VB.NET != VB7

One of the core concepts of software versions is that things change between them. Perl 6 will be != Perl 5. PHP4 != PHP3. ANSI Common LISP != PDP-1 LISP. Prestandard C++ != C++. Today's standard C != K&R C != V6 UNIX C (research that one!). It is no surprise that VB.NET != VB6. Porting old code verbatim is irrelevant; sometimes things must change that break old stuff. Try recompiling V6 C programs verbatim with a recent CC. Hint: it won't work.

Also, note that none of these languages was "killed" by moving to its next version.

"SecretAsianMan" says so. "Poser"

Well, it started out back in 1997 simply as a play on words of the song "Secret Agent Man". However, it is uncanny how, through totally unrelated developments, the name fits me to a tee today. I'll just say that I'm not Asian, but I am very interested in Asian culture, something which was not the case when the name was selected. I can't really discuss it further without compromising my privacy.

Re:The beast that won't die

[EllisDees]

VB.NET is really just C# with a different frontend. It has about as much in common with VB as java does.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Tacky the Penguin]

My one experience of this was quite nasty in that we had a legasy app using foxpro back and front ends that we needed to convert so the data would run inside sqlserver (to integrate it with the rest of the business) and leave the front end in vfp. In theory just a case or ripping out the direct data accesses and replace it by odbc calls.

heh. I'm not surprised.

The xBase languages predate SQL. Most vintage xBase software is going to be a real nightmare to convert to a database where you are so insulated from the tables -- for the reason that you described.

FoxPro 2.0 was the first version that would do SQL queries and inserts. Even so, it was nowhere near a complete implimentation. For instance, it wouldn't do outer joins.

The ability to do ODBC on VFP is great for connecting to external databases, and for those who want to use something other than the native tables and database container.

The long and the short of it is that there are xBase techniques that have no counterpart in the SQL world. When I write programs, I try to use SQL commands to retrieve the data because it's generally faster to do it that way. There are times, however, when nothing works like a good 'ol scan loop, BROWSE KEY, BROWSE FOR, or an index with a FOR clause tacked on.

There are actually some good reasons for going with an external backend database, but speed isn't one of them. I recall showing a query to another (non-FoxPro) programmer. He told me that the outer join would "drive the server to its knees". It was lightning fast on FoxPro, however. That makes me wonder if there is any style of query that would be fast in something like MySQL, but would bog VFP down.

Re:The beast that won't die

[Grizzlysmit]

So it's their own product and their trying to kill it, it probably violates their application standards, what's it do actually work, or is it that it doesn't crash enough to be a true ms product :D

Re:The beast that won't die

[The Bungi]

Porting old code verbatim is irrelevant

It is not when you have a lot of money invested in your existing codebase. It may be more fun, but that doesn't make it right.

Try recompiling V6 C programs verbatim with a recent CC. Hint: it won't work.

With a few small changes I can recompile code written for VC++ 4.2 in VC++ 7.0 (.NET). VB6 imported and compiled VB5 projects with also just a few very minor changes.

Also, note that none of these languages was "killed" by moving to its next version.

In the context of VB, what I mean by "killed" is that they took an existing tool and gave it a completely different spin at the expense of users. Not everyone is writing internet enabled applications. Now this affects a lot of users, but not all of them. VB.NET will certainly be widely used. But there's a feeling among the VB crowd of a bit of backstabbing by Microsoft. They didn't release VB7, they went .NET. If you don't believe me, look through the DOTNET-L mailing list archives from late 2000 to early 2002. You'll see what I mean.

Personally, I don't really care - I use VC++ and VB and now whenever I do .NET it's C# all the way. But some people do make a big fuss about it, with reason.

Re:The beast that won't die

[sc88]

Microsoft likes to make money. So they keep the best VFP people around to update the product to fill its niches (fast scalable local ISAM). There are probably what, 20 people in the whole group? But there are thousands on thousands of folks that buy the latest version each time, I think the VFP group is one of if not the most profitable at Microsoft.

One of the problems at MS is that they own VFP, and killing it means (hundreds of?) millions of dollars lost. They can't sell it off either; they don't want a local database engine that smokes Access/MSDE in the hands of a competitor. Just killing the product means some folks will move to other MS products and others will go elsewhere, again dollars lost.

So running VFP on a Linix is kind of an issue because VFP's free executable distribution clause means the client community can get a strong, lightweight data-centric solution without paying a dime in purchase cost.

As far as the (V)FP community is concerned, developers that are buying it are not using it like they should. With VFP 8, you get a new CursorAdapter class, a new XmlAdapter class, even-easier-than-easy web service tools, and more. And the data engine is still faster than everything else when it comes to local data access (as long as each table is less than 2gb).

However, I bet that the community that should be using all this new stuff is maintaining (or creating new) spaghetti crap that gives "FoxPro" a bad name. Visual FoxPro isn't FoxPro any more than Visual Basic is BASIC. The (V)FP community is the problem and the solution at the same time. One of the problems with the product is that it's so easy to create a solution that won't break (but at the same time can't be maintained), that there are a ton of apps out there running businesses that see no reason to change.

At any rate, without having looked at VFP-on-WINE performance myself, I would believe that a VFP data solution smokes one wrapped around MySql.....

I would have to say

[greechneb]

That this was only a matter of time. I have this bad feeling before long, any microsoft products, or any software company that is in bed with microsoft will be checking during install to make sure that there is a valid windows license.

There will probably be a line in the EULA stating: It is illegal to run this program on a non-windows operating system.

I sure wouldn't put it past microsoft. I'm sure there would be ways around it, but then microsoft would have a great way to take anyone to court using wine to run windows software on linux.

- I'm very happy wearing my tinfoil hat!

Re:I would have to say

[Blaine Hilton]

Just think what will happen if the software devlopment companies do not comply? They would be forced into it just because the user base alone.

Re:I would have to say

[buffer-overflowed]

Good, I'd like to see strict liscense enforcement of windows apps.

It'll do nothing but help out the OSS community, after all, our stuff is free AND legal.

Re:I would have to say

[TheRealRamone]

An earlier post shows how you are mistaken.

See what Colonel Klink has to say...

Re:I would have to say

[Nerull]

I can't seem to remember which game it was, but I remember looking at the EULA from a Microsoft game that said you may only use this product on a licensed copy of Microsoft Windows.

Re:I would have to say

[duggy_92127]

There will probably be a line in the EULA stating: It is illegal to run this program on a non-windows operating system.

They've either been saying that for years, or they used to say that years ago. I remember hearing that that line was in the MS Office EULA, and finding one and reading it.

Anybody with more info?

Doug

Good thing MS was convicted...

[setag]

Good thing MS was convicted of anti-trust violations. Now they can't tie thier software to the Windows OS...

I love justice! How about moving away from FoxPro and MS to send MS a message? Like "we won't bow to your oppresive EULAs anylonger".

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[The Kryptonian]

I'm probably going to get modded down for restating the obvious, but it's still a Windows-centric world. Most developers can't afford to simply trash their in-house base of expertise in Windows-centric technology and use a non-Windows OS and development tools exclusively. They have to sell what the clients want, or they don't stay in business very long.
But for what it's worth, my brother is one of the key players at a development firm in Wisconsin, and he says that almost none of his firm's clients are using .NET, and they're all pushing toward using Linux-based client-server solutions. The desktops are still Windows, but the back ends are swiftly migrating away from a Redmond-only game-plan.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[thelexx]

"How about moving away from FoxPro and MS"

Speaking as the lone Java guy in an MS/FoxPro dominated shop, this subject is of special interest to me. In a nutshell, no other environment has the native data handling capabilities combined with a syntactically simple (which I think can still run dbIII+ era code!) base language that at the same time is still evolving (mutating?) to allow for some real OO design if you want it combined with a decently friendly dev environ and GUI builder tools combined with a single point of sale and support that makes the PHBs feel comfy. Someone nailed it in an earlier comment when they mentioned that the user community is keeping Fox alive. The users have been so vocal and tenacious that I think MS has said, "Screw it, let's just keep five or ten guys working on Fox and they can do whatever the hell they want with it." Every time a new version comes out, my Fox flag waving compatriot mentions how it has about ten new features that he's thought of since the last version and that he's been wanting, or that replace a hacked together solution the community has come up with, etc. Most of the time I point out that the new geegaws are already in Java, but it's never sufficient to make up for the lack of native data handling or GUI building...ugh. Fox is a product MS got right in spite of their best efforts to kill it.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[MikeMo]

In a nutshell, no other environment has the native data handling capabilities combined with a syntactically simple (which I think can still run dbIII+ era code!) base language that at the same time is still evolving (mutating?) to allow for some real OO design if you want it combined with a decently friendly dev environ and GUI builder tools combined with a single point of sale and support that makes the PHBs feel comfy.

Poop. Check out http://www.4d.com. It's been around almost as long as FoxPro, runs on Windows and Macs, is at least as easy to use at FP, and is definitely evolving. There's an incredible developer community, plugins, built-in web server, you name, you got it.

Here's the PR for the upcoming release: http://4dtoday.com/summit?c=detail&id=23

It seems to have everything (I think they're hinting towards Linux). The last release added automatic support for Web Services via SOAP/XML.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[angle_slam]

Good thing MS was convicted of anti-trust violations. Now they can't tie thier software to the Windows OS...

There is a huge difference between this situation and the bundling situation. In one word: bundling. Bundling is what MS did to IE, including a browser with the OS to discourage people from buying Netscape. This is the opposite situation, a standalone product is strictly Windows only.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[Phil Wilkins]

No, actually, Fox is a product that someone else got right, which was then bought by MS.

Even more amusing, is that they bought FoxPro, so they could kill it, and force everyone to use Access.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[docwhat]

Bundling is exactly what people are talking about. If MS is asserting that VFP must only be run on windows, then they have just bundled MS OS with VFP.

You are unable to use VFP without another MS product (the OS). This is what bundling is. It's the tying of one product to another. Making one product only available with the purchase of another.

Now, IANAL but I would think that being able to buy VFP and be given the choice of a) not using it at all or b) buy an MS OS isn't much of a choice at all.

Ciao!

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[Chordonblue]

I don't think MS will have to go to any lengths to deal with this issue.

Future versions will be Palladium-based and most probably check .dll versions - even do confirmation online, that sort of thing.

Is this anti-competitive? Dunno. Does it suck? Yup.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[angle_slam]

You are unable to use VFP without another MS product (the OS). This is what bundling is. It's the tying of one product to another. Making one product only available with the purchase of another.

So what you're saying is that Grand Theft Auto 3: Vice City is tied to the Playstation 2 because it you can't run it on the GameCube. Final Cut Pro is tied to the Mac because it is not available for Windows. In fact, what you're saying is that EVERY MS product (from Flight Simulator to Age of Mythology) is tied to Windows because most are Windows exclusive. That is not what the courts had in mind.

IE was tied because it was using a monopoly in OS to "force" people to use a browser. MS doesn't have a monopoly on database systems.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[msborg]

I always love demoing VFP to someone whose impression of it was formed back in the DOS days. Things like the Class Browser usually stun them, and then manipulating MySQL tables in an interactive browse, all from the Command Window, usually knocks them for a loop. I've programmed in many other languages in my time, but I still think that VFP kicks all their butts.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[idontgno]

WARNING: IANAL, but...

The behavior in question isn't "bundling", it's "tying". And there is a notable and telling litigation history against M$ in the area of anti-competitive tying of non-OS products to its OS. (See this nifty summary of the Caldera v. Microsoft case of 1996-2000.)

(There are those that argue that the "non-OS product"--Windows 3.1--is actually an OS component. Those folks are, of course, wrong. At the time of MS-DOS 5.0 and Digital Research's DR-DOS 6, Windows was no more a mandatory OS component than a 3 1/2" floppy drive was.)

So, Microsoft has made grabs at non-OS-space with its OS products. Yeah, I know, they settled without admission of guilt. The fact they settled is the moral equivalent of an admission of guilt, legal weasels notwithstanding.

Windows 3.1 was tied, for no valid technical reason, to Microsoft's MS-DOS. This solely to weaken competitive OS products. Sound familiar?

In fact, what you're saying is that EVERY MS product (from Flight Simulator to Age of Mythology) is tied to Windows because most are Windows exclusive. That is not what the courts had in mind.

The reason most M$ applications seem to be "Windows exclusive" is because they can't be run natively on other platforms. That's a valid technical reason for OS-exclusivity. However, if someone (e.g., the WINE Project) successfully engineers an OS or a compatibility layer which is API-compatible with Windows, and therefore makes the technical reasons for OS-exclusivity go away... then... M$ has no say in the matter. If the MS products can be run on non-M$ OSs, then M$ has no legal standing to prohibit that. M$ cannot legally mandate Windows in order to run M$ applications. THAT is illegal tying. And THAT IS what the courts had in mind.

Re:Good thing MS was convicted...

[docwhat]

Yes, GTA3 is tied to the PS2. But the PS2 doesn't have a monopoly on the game console market. You have choices. In fact, you can run GTA3:VC on an emulator and that is fine.

MS has a monopoly. It was ruled such. They are using tying (in this case VFP) to prevent anyone else (in this case WINE/WINEX) from entering their OS market to compete with them.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but neither are you. *grin* So I have no problem with discussing this with you till one shows up.

Ciao!

Hmm, must be a Fark reader.

[Mononoke]

FoxPro On Linux, Drama Ensues

How long until we get a Boobies link?

ps: Fb- is the father.

Re:Hmm, must be a Fark reader.

[NeuroKoan]

I was thinking the same thing.

First thing I did when I entered this thread was hit ctrl-f and typed in "fark" and found your post instantly.

Great minds think alike I guess...

Re:Hmm, must be a Fark reader.

[ayeco]

ditto. didn't read a single post before I hit crtl-f and searched for fark.

Re:Hmm, must be a Fark reader.

[Zepalesque]

Hmmmm...

FoxPro On Linux, kittens prepare for their demise

lol

What about crossover office?

[scharkalvin]

OK what about MS office under Crossover. Does Redmond have Codeweavers in their cross hairs yet?

Re:What about crossover office?

[NibbleAbit]

Crossover costs money, therefore it is easy to measure the damage being done to Microsoft. When the damage is large enough, they will taget it..

Wine is free. If this caught on in the wild, the damage would be hard to measure, and more importantly, hard to control.

Re:What about crossover office?

[IamTheRealMike]

Jeremy White from CodeWeavers has said in public interviews that they aren't concerned about this possibility - some licenses have tried to tie Office to Windows before, and then they removed those ties apparently, because they'd be illegal.

I rather suspect that if Redmond did try and beat up CodeWeavers, Gates would end up on the wrong side of the courtroom again. Nobody knows how long it'd take for Wine/CodeWeavers to be proven innocent.

Oh, one thing I do know is that Microsoft have been monitoring Wine for many years now, and the extent of their harassment has been a claim that header files are copyrighted (which was abandoned). I'm pretty sure it's bulletproof and they don't know what to do about it.

I don't really see what all the hubub is about...

[AmazingRuss]

...as it is unlikely that many businesses are going to be willing to convert their workstations from Win XP to Linux.

The best/most stable VFP/Linux setup is going to be windows clients running VFP apps accessing data from some flavor of Linux SQL server. This doesn't appear to violate the EULA...

Illegal Tying

[Rob Riggs]

Isn't it illegal for Microsoft to tie any of its software products to its OS?

Re:Illegal Tying

[Alien Being]

Yes. The penalty is dinner with no dessert.

Re:Illegal Tying

[rocketlawyer]

Actually, it is illegal for someone who has a monopoly in one product to force you to purchase a second product in conjunction with your purchase of the first (monopoly) product.

The logic here is that the monopolist is not allowed to take advantage of their monopoly power in one product to improve their sales in another, presumably to the detriment of the competitors in that second market.

In the case of browsers, MS was found guilty of forcing consumers to buy a browser (a product for which they did not have a monopoly), when the person bought Windows (a product for which Microsoft wielded monopoly power).

In the present case, Microsoft is potentially attempting to force people to buy their monopoly product in conjunction with their purchase of Microsoft's non-monopoly product (VFP). This is not an illegal act. Of course, if you can get a judge to accept some definition of the relevant market, such that Visual FoxPro has a monopoly on that market, then you'ld have an antitrust violation.

Re:Illegal Tying

[HermanZA]

Yup, in many states it is illegal to tie any sale to any other sale. Most of MS's EULA contents is unenforceable in most places.

Re:Illegal Tying

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only in communist USA. A free market is based on competition, and tying products is anti-competitive behaviour no matter if you have a monopoly or not.

A free market is only free as long as it is kept free.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[burninginside]

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User License Agreement (''EULA'') is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product(s) accompanying this EULA, which include(s) computer software and may include "online" or electronic documentation, associated media, and printed materials (''SOFTWARE PRODUCT''). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or any UPDATES (as defined below), you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install, copy, or otherwise use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund. In addition, by installing, copying, or otherwise using any updates or other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that you receive separately as part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (''UPDATES''), you agree to be bound by any additional license terms that accompany such UPDATES. If you do not agree to the additional license terms that accompany such UPDATES, you may not install, copy, or otherwise use such UPDATES. SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold. NOTE: The terms of a printed, paper EULA which may accompany the SOFTWARE PRODUCT supersede the terms of any on-screen EULA found within the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 1. LICENSE TO USE SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s) that are designed to operate in conjunction with any Microsoft operating system product. You may install copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on an unlimited number of computers provided that you are the only individual using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you are an entity, Microsoft grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the sole right to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the manner provided above. 1.2 Documentation. This EULA grants you, as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use an unlimited number of copies of any documentation, provided that such copies shall be used only for personal purposes and are not to be republished or distributed (either in hard copy or electronic form) beyond the user's premises and with the following exception: you may use documentation identified in the MSDN Library portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as the file format specification for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and/or Microsoft PowerPoint ("File Format Documentation") solely in connection with your development of software product(s) that operate in conjunction with Windows or Windows NT that are not general purpose word processing, spreadsheet, or database management software products or an integrated work or product suite whose components include one or more general purpose word processing, spreadsheet, or database management software products. Note: A product that includes limited word processing, spreadsheet, or database components along with other components that provide significant and primary value, such as an accounting product with limited spreadsheet capability, is not considered to be a "general purpose" product. 1.3 Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on computers used by a licensed end user in accordance with Section 1.1. A single license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently by other end users. 1.4 Visual Studio-Effect of EULA. This Section 1.4 also applies if the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Microsoft Visual Studio, a suite of development tools and other software programs (each such tool or software

foxpro

[papasui]

I didn't realize that FoxPro was still being used, considering Microsoft's push of Access and SQL Server.

Re:foxpro

[questionlp]

Visual FoxPro, while it has it's own data format, is also a language that is supposed to be very good as handling data manipulation. Think of it as a combination of Perl and BerkeleyDB or Perl and dBase.

Visual FoxPro also supports ODBC and can connect to a SQL Server to get and post data. Beyond that, I don't know much else about it.

Re:foxpro

[Anonymous Coward]

Visual FoxPro version 8 is being released right now, and version 9 is in development.

VFP is targeted at serious developers, where Access is targeted at end-users. It has a much steeper learning curve, but it pays off when working on large projects. It's much faster than VB or Access when working with tables with millions of records.

It became a fully object oriented language back in version 3, picking up features that VB is only just getting now. We essentially went through the VB to VB.NET style change with version 3.

If our company had 100 users, we'd look at an SQL server with a VFP front-end. But with only 30 users, SQL server wouldn't give us any better speed (or anything else) to justify the expense.

We've also sold apps written in VFP - no SQL server needed.

I expect this is why Microsoft doesn't advertise VFP - Unlike VB.NET, the user doesn't need to buy SQL server.

Re:foxpro

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use VFP as front-end and postgres as backend.

VFP is not only a database. Visual FoxPro 8.0 is a powerful database development system for quickly creating high-performance desktop, rich client, distributed client, client/server, and Web database applications.

see http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand wanting to move away from MS to Linux for certain customers. My question is why in the world would you (a consultant) sell your customers an MS solution running under emulation in a Linux environment? Bite the bullet man, learn to code your applications using tried and true Linux tools. Don't cling to the past if, as you say, your goal is to stop using MS products. I'm no MS fan, but as a once VFP developer (now ASP.NET) I can understand the love for it.

Re:Why?

[SamBeckett]

What is the name of the Linux software that does what FoxPro does?

Re:Why?

[NibbleAbit]

Last year I had a client who wanted to distribute their commercial VFP application on Linux servers. The idea was to have the VFP application running on a Linux server, the the client workstations would run X server software to access it. This makes the clients very thin and inexpensive and the server easy to do version control. Much less expensive than MS Terminal services.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kylix.

Re:Why?

[msborg]

If it were a totally new app, then yes, I'd agree with you. But many of my clients have a big investment in their apps, and they either a) don't want to spring for new hardware to run the latest bloated Microsoft OS, or b) have lots of workstations that run the VFP app and nothing else. In the latter case, replacing those Windows workstations with Linux and Wine would save them lots of money. The sole intent of the recently added clause to the EULA prohibiting such a setup seems to be designed to prevent exactly this sort of migration to a competitive desktop OS.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[The Bungi]

You just viloated the EULA by posting the EULA.

*rimshot*

dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Pejorian]

Hey anyone know if you can run dBase Plus (the latest visual-OOP-BDE version of the even more ancient and venerable dBase line) on Linux thru Wine?

I can guarantee that if you can get dBase running, dBase Inc. will shake your hand, not slap your wrist. They've been promising a Linux version for ages, and if they could find the time, they would have released one by now...

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Alien Being]

SCO used to (~1990) offer an xBase compiler/runtime for various Unices.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[the_other_one]

That was a FoxBase compiler. Foxbase was the precursor to FoxPro.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Pejorian]

Not sure why I was moderated "funny"...

dBase Plus is NOT your father's Ashton-Tate dBase III+...

Please visit the dBase Inc. website for more information. It is entirely Object Oriented, graphical, 32-bit, SQL-compliant, and it uses Borland's BDE as a database engine. It is fast, it runs web sites well, and you don't have to deal with Microsoft's stupid EULA.

I hope someone meta-moderates that stupid "Funny" moderation.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Pejorian]

Borland, as far as I know, is still holding onto the source code for the DOS dBase (and all those other Unix builds). They sold the Visual dBase source to a new little company called dBase Inc.

Fortunately (for performance and unfortunately for compatibility), the dBase Plus code is all 32-bit Windows, which means it is built on a completely new and different codebase.

But does it run under Wine? The question, I guess, is can you get the Borland Database Engine to run?

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Tablizer]

NOT your father's Ashton-Tate dBase III+...
Please visit the dBase Inc. [dbase.com] website for more information. It is entirely Object Oriented,

Why is it "better" just because it is OO? IMO dBASE blew its chance to use data-dictionary (widget tables) based GUI components instead of code objects. FoxPro 2.x actually did use tables to hold GUI layouts (in a sloppy kind of way), but overhauled it in 3 for the band-wagon code-centric OOP GUI system. XBase was the ideal place to implement table-based GUI's and event dispatch tables. One could then "query" their widgets and events for debugging and inspection instead of relying on "static" code browsers.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Pejorian]

Tablizer,

I agree that the "widget tables" approach is a good one. However, I think you answered your own question. OO is very "band wagon" -- another way of saying the de facto standard.

I don't think object orientation is necessarily the best approach, but I think it's important for an application development system to stay in step with the dominant way of thinking in terms of programming models. I think dBase has been doing this, while maintaining an amazing amount of backward-compatibility. Sure, @...SAY commands don't work anymore (not really practical in a Windows environment), but just about everything else does.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Tablizer]

I agree that the "widget tables" approach is a good one. However, I think you answered your own question. OO is very "band wagon" -- another way of saying the de facto standard....I don't think object orientation is necessarily the best approach, but I think it's important for an application development system to stay in step with the dominant way of thinking in terms of programming models.

I refuse to accept mediocrity. Is OO the QWERTY or New-COBOL of software development?

Sure, @...SAY commands don't work anymore (not really practical in a Windows environment),

Actually, it can with floating-point coordinates and more event clauses (onClick, onExit, onValidate, etc...), but that is another issue, especially since most stay in the IDE (screen editor) anyhow.

Thanks for your feedback though.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Pejorian]

You wrote:
> I refuse to accept mediocrity. Is OO the QWERTY or New-COBOL of software development?

It's even worse. It's the HTML of software development. Not necessarily superior, and inferior in many ways, but it is the standard nevertheless...

Just visited your oop.ismad website. Now I understand why you reacted so strongly to the OO aspect of dBase. I don't want to get into an argument with someone who feels so passionately about something, especially since I don't much care in this area.

One comment about the popularity of OO, however. I wonder if it was the event-driven nature of the GUI interfaces (button clicks, independant windows, etc) that made OO popular, rather than the graphics? OO is a very convenient way to implement an event-driven architecture; no "main" procedure infinitely looping, waiting for interrupts. And yes, before you argue, I know it can be done other ways, like widget tables etc. It just seemed like a good way to do it at the time, I suppose, and then enough people had gone through the learning curve (and thus, not wanting to do it differently -- change is EXPENSIVE) that it became the de facto standard.

Re:dBase and FoxPro on Linux

[Tablizer]

It just seemed like a good way to do it at the time, I suppose, and then enough people had gone through the learning curve (and thus, not wanting to do it differently -- change is EXPENSIVE) that it became the de facto standard.

Well, that is true I suppose. OO GUI frameworks have been around long enough to finally get right (or at least "decent"). I imagine the first batch of table-oriented GUI frameworks would be screwy also in some ways (unless I make it of course :-) and later generations would learn from the early mistakes.

Anyhow, in good IDE GUI systems you don't spend much time in the framework code anyhow. You deal with the event code snippets and don't need to care whether these snippets are in OO classes or event tables. (I know some think that "real coders" code GUI's in text code, but that is another argument for another day.)

It is true that "change is expensive", but fads are more powerful than the resistence to change (at least until the dot-com bust). Thus, when OO gets too entrenched, vendors will hype something like table-oriented programming to sell new stuff, and TOP GUI's and Learn-TOP-in-21-Days books will finally be in everybody's face.

Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filters?

[StandardCell]

No, not if they fit. It seems like a ridiculous assertion.

Yet this is precisely the same problem we have here with VFP and WINE. Erosion of rights in using a product. Maybe in future EULAs, Microsoft will prevent the use of the install CD case to hold open doors in offices with BSD servers.

Dumb? Yeah. But where will it stop?

Call the DOJ

[Mr. Underbridge]

Isn't it part of Microsoft licensing that you must run the software under Microsoft's environment? I haven't used FoxPro since Microsoft bought it out, but I've heard that's a pretty common term with at least some of their EULAs.

And an illegal one, but they'll wait until the DOJ raps their knuckles on every issue until they C&D. This is "leveraging their OS monopoly" if I ever saw it.

So if I were the guys trying to run FoxPro on linux, and assuming M$ doesn't decide to play nice, I'd fire off a comment to the people in DOJ supposedly enforcing this crap. It worked for getting the Explorer Uninstaller more prominent positioning.

Wine is not an emulator: that's the problem...

[fjpereira]

Because if WINE was an emulator, we could argue that the software is indeed running on windows, on top of a WINE virtual machine.

In that case, we could say the the physical computer running Linux and WINE is a high level computer and Windows is running on top of that computer.

There is nothing strange in this situation if you notice that most peripherals and controller chips have it's own builtin software (firmware) and even microprocessors are running on top of it's own internal microcode/nanocode software.

Re:Wine is not an emulator: that's the problem...

[the_pooh_experience]

I keep looking for the "I'm sure it is right but I can't follow the argument" choice in the mod drop-down box, but I can't weem to find it.

Re:I don't really see what all the hubub is about.

[Ja-Ja-Jamin]

You're missing the point. My bet is that many FoxPro applications are vertical apps - apps that run video stores, for example. It would appealing/cost effective/desirable to run Linux POS systems instead of WinXP systems. Since there isn't a license per runtime for a VFP .exe combined with no license for the OS, I bet this combo would be HOT in the retail industry!

Maybe if

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenOffice.com was a bit faster, more stable and supported foxpro files then we can tell microsoft to apt-get lost.

Re:What?

[morgajel]

ok, I gotta ask...

WHY THE HELL would you want to use foxpro, on linux or otherwise?
the last job I had needed me to interface some web applications to a foxpro database from some program that the HR department used. It might have been that the company that created this particular foxpro database didn't know how to make a database, but that was the most poorly documented, ugly and generally foul database I've ever used.
It might be more stable than access, but I'd even prefer working with an access database to that steaming pile of monkey feces.

I still give the guy +2 balls for publishing it. Howto's are made by people with an iron gut, and you sir, must have one for stomaching foxpro :)

Re:I don't really see what all the hubub is about.

[Liquor]

it is unlikely that many businesses are going to be willing to convert their workstations from Win XP to Linux.

This may be true for many businesses, but I get the impression that Whil was looking to create a zero-added-cost database application client on non-XP-capable (i.e. inexpensive) hardware, which will certainly appeal to the accountants when a general purpose Windows PC is not required - or wanted, e.g. the machine is network connected - but doesn't have IE (pronounced aaaiiiyeeee) installed.

NO!!! NO NO FOXPRO ON LINUX!!

[Exantrius]

I'm dealing with freaking fox pro right now, it blows goats!

PLEASE DON"T LET IT GO ON LINUX!!! I'LL HAVE TO START DIGGING DITCHES FOR A LIVING!!!

*head explodes*

Maybe I should read the article now.

Re:NO!!! NO NO FOXPRO ON LINUX!!

[jellomizer]

I have done FoxPro development. And my opinion it is the best of the microsoft languages. (probably because it wasnt origanally made by microsoft). And perhaps FoxPro is the wrong language for your applications. FoxPro is like MS Access on steroids. It has its place, And Cx, Java, Perl, Python, and most any other language dosent do well what FoxPro does well. Which is easly make interface for database information and minipulate database info. Plus FoxPro for Linux can help a lot of companies convert to linux where they are now stuck on Windows because they have invested $100k in their custom FOX apps.

Re:NO!!! NO NO FOXPRO ON LINUX!!

[Exantrius]

Well, you seem to know more than I care to about FP-- maybe you can answer a question-- Is there a better way to make reports? I'm trying to fill out (printout) forms (think DMV), using FP reports-- and placing is a pain in the ass.
Any suggestions?

Re:NO!!! NO NO FOXPRO ON LINUX!!

[ToughRat]

We do our reports using Crystal Reports, for anything other that simple lists. You can do much more with VFP reports (get Cindy Winegarden's book from www.hentzenwerke.com), but Crystal gives drilldown, neat crosstabs, etc.

We've got it set up so that the data can come from any datasource (vfp tables, backends) transparently; we create a DBC on-the-fly and feed that to Crystal.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[HaeMaker]

The difference it that you don't "license" a GM oil filter, you "buy" it. Since software is licensed they have more leeway in their licensing terms.

I don't think you get it

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of April Fools is to do something other than what normally would happen.

Type the following command at a Windows XP prompt:

[Richard Steiner]

findstr /I C:\WINDOWS\system32\*.exe

That uncovers some of the copyright notices from BSD software that were left intact. Other bits of borrowed code probably exist elsewhere...

FoxPro on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

My first reaction to this article was "Who in their right mind would defile Linux by running FoxPro on it?".

My second reaction was, "Then agan, who in their right mind would run FoxPro on Windows either?"

Correction!

[Richard Steiner]

findstr /I "regents" C:\WINDOWS\system32\*.exe

Re:Correction!

[pyrrho]

yes, wouldn't that be nice!

Similar EULA clause in VB

[ragingmime]

By itself, this .EXE file doesn't do the customer or end-user much good. It must be deployed to end-user machines in combination with runtime files (or libraries) that know how to interpret and execute the code in the EXE.
That's true of Visual Basic, too - there's a DLL that needs to be distributed with your programs to get them to work. And I think there's a clause in the VB EULA similar to that in FoxPro (yes, I was a nerd and actually read the thing). Theoretically, that means that you couldn't distribute VB programs to be run on WINE, either. Not that you'd really want to, but still...

This isn't the same thing.

[Trith]

I have to disagree. I have Microsoft's business practices more than anyone; but in this case, they are just restricting it from other OSes. That is not the same as bundling it and making sure that it cannot be unbundled. IE and Media player cannot be uninstalled. VFP can.

Re:This isn't the same thing.

[setag]

That is not the same as bundling it and making sure that it cannot be unbundled. IE and Media player cannot be uninstalled. VFP can.

Let me then coin a new term (you read it hear first folks ;)). The new term is:

virtual-bundling

The EULA for VFP constitutes a "virtual-bundle" and follows the same idea as bundling software. The only difference is that a virtual-bundle can be un-installed.

MS decided to, at version 7, tie VFP to windows only. What good can come from that? Why the sudden change of heart?

Thank you for pointing out the difference though.

I would like to see some numbers of how many EULAs limit software to a particular OS.

Lets be more precise..

[AmazingRuss]

...you are dealing with a crappily-WRITTEN app in Foxpro. It's easy to learn just enough to cobble together a crummy app in Foxpro, and as such there are a million crappy fox apps out there. This is in no way the fault of the language...which not only offers an extremely fast, stable native database, but full OOP implementation. Don't judge it by some of the hacks that use it.

Re:Lets be more precise..

[Exantrius]

This is the third FP program I've done support for. While this one is TEH SUCK much more than the other two, even the best of the group was worse than a hacked up php version I left them with...

You're right, it's probably the writer-- Can you recommend a *GOOD* system on FP? I don't care what it does, I just want to see what FP can do.

THis is the first job I've actually mucked around with the programming itself (usually, it's just rescuing the data that FP holds prisoner). Mostly what I see (with the visual foxpro at least, maybe there's another version I'm missing), is it fights the user interface every step of the way-- and from what I've seen, it's a problem with the trunk (language), not the branch(program).

Re:Lets be more precise..

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Your observation that there's some problem with the language is probably incorrect; put a moron on a keyboard, you'll get a moron's results. I had a client, long ago - their previous guy wrote some crap, and all times had to be entered in military format. The reason he gave for this - and it exemplifies my point quite well - was that C could not be made to convert times from military to AM/PM. *** Could NOT. *** And he meant it, I'm serious.

If noone understands you, what you do, or why you do it, it could be that you're a genius. More likely, though, it's because you're an idiot.

Dunno if these are "good", or not. But,

I use fox to provide an interface to our Nortel PBX. It grabs the cdr events, the 30-second stats, the hourly ACD stats, tracks what agents are at which phones, who took or made what calls, periodically bounces phone numbers against a dozen reverse-lookup sites to see who our users were calling, watchdogs the various AUDs & DTIs, etc and sends me a txtmsg if things go awry, and watchdogs the actual inbound/outbound traffic patterns to figure out if any of our T1s go grey (meaning our provider faulted them, which won't cause an error on the switch for some strange reason). It watches the ACD queues and compares it to current staffing levels. If we're getting slammed at 3am, it'll txtmsg the manager-on-call, and tell her that the night crew needs a few telecommuters to hop on for an hour. That, and it proxies the serial TTY console so's that I can telenet to it from anywhere, even from home using an IPaq. That's a good app.

Writing another one that compares ESRI shape files. Each quarter, GDT sends us a map with every known street in the state. We have polygons, etc, all across the state that were drawn relative to the positions of those streets, and their intersections. GDT sends us a new map, and some of those streets (and intersections) move. Our polygons don't, and that's A Bad Thing(tm). Since GDT will not release changelogs, Our Little App walks every feature in our current release, finds or guesses where it is in the new one, deals exhaustively with name changes, and tries to suggest additions to our polygons to maintain their spatial relationships with those new features. That's a killer app, when it's done.

After reading a good Dilbert about "moving our database to an e-mail based system", I wrote one as a joke. In fox. More scarey, someone wanted to use it.

I've written too many parsers in Fox. LR, LL, whatever. Not the fastest, but great for harvesting.

One of the more fun projects was about Telephone Poles. I used pure fox to provide a GUI, featuring a pole. The user would drag-n-drop features onto the pole - transformers, wires, whatever. User would then add any quantified defects found. Lastly, core samples would be input from various heights, and the software would calculate the various moments, % remaining strengths in different directions, etc, and decide if the poll needed repair or replacement. The user could them spit out a list of poles needing work, etc.

The neatest one was a cut optimizer for a window factory. It'd invasively rip the day's work orders out of their proprietary software, figure out what parts where needed, rip the available inventory, merge it with any known scraps left over from previous runs, and spit out cut-patterns onto disks, that'd produce the least waste. The disks would then be stuffed into some semi-automated cutting saws, etc. I say this was the neatest, because it wasn't all linear cuts - this was a window factory, so I had to handle glass also. At the end of the run, any useful scraps were tracked for later use, and inventory would be deducted from the proprietary's files. It really pissed of that proprietary vendor, because they offered an optimizer for about 40 grand... and they ran theirs head-to-head against mine on several hundred batches, mine beat them by almost 65% on linear, and nearly 18% on planar (glass). ROFL, considering I wrote it in exactly 14 hours and 12 minutes... I

Re:Lets be more precise..

[Exantrius]

Wow. You do seem to know your way around foxpro, but I was hoping for something I could download that could get me excited about dealing with fox pro. Still, by your descriptions, it looks like I may have been harsh towards FP.

One thing that has been bugging me about the help files is the lack of useful quick reference material. Do you know of a good quick ref floating around? Preferably cheap or free because I'm learning this in my "spare time" according to the bosses.

Thanks /ex

btw: if you prefer to e-mail me, my address is mmintzii_AT_yahoo_DOT_com

How i see this

[trinity93]

First of all FoxPro and access have a lot in common in that they both basicaly do the same thing. Most companies do not use its internal database features, but use the form generation tools to create database frontend applications to larger, more robust server based database systems.

Linux lacks a robust RAD tool for createing such frontends. A lot of companies rely on ever changeing data access forms that change with each project. Access and FoxPro enable them to do this with little hasel. This is why Access and FoxPro refuse to die. At the same time this is one of the things preventing Linux from being used in a corprate desktop enviorment. This also explanes why most database apps in linux are witen as web based applications. Linux needs a peice of software that works like Access and FoxPro. Abbras (i think its called) that is included in Star Office is close, but it dosen't alow for createing stand alone apps in the way Access and FoxPro do.

Basicaly, the point im trying to make is that Microsoft never thows a fit about anything unless there is a reason. By getting FoxPro and Access to run on Linux these guys are threatening Microsofts hold on the corprate market and they know it. This shows that if a alternitive or clone of FoxPro or Access was created it would hurt Microsoft quite a bit. I support anything that prevents Microsoft from controling the corprate working enviorment. If no one wants to create a subsitute to FoxPro or Access this this will have to do. By supporting these guys in there endevor you are putting another nail in M$'s coffin.


Trinity

Re:How i see this

[trinity93]

Well that could be used as well but its more of a programing enviorment than what Access or FoxPro is. basicaly what is needed is a program that you point at a data base and you create data binded forms and saves what you make as a executiable with little programing requiered if any. this is what makes Access and FoxPro so inticeing for comapnies.

Why Ask?

[Euphonious Coward]

Why are these people waiting for Microsoft to read them their rights? The EULA is right there.

First, read it, and see if it has any provisions of interest to the case.

Next, see if they are actually enforceable under copyright law. Since the license isn't a contract -- you weren't asked to sign it before buying -- they can't take away any rights that copyright law doesn't specifically identify. (Except in Maryland!)

If you want to copy their files to your customers' machines, copyright law is involved. However, if the product was advertised as if that right to copy was included in the product you were paying for, and the package didn't identify restrictions on that copying, then the Uniform Commercial Code says their EULA can't take away whatever you had a reasonable belief that you were getting when you paid. That is, the implied contract of merchantability fitness trumps the written EULA, every time. (Except in Maryland!)

The bulk of most EULAs is wastepaper, just hoping to fool customers into giving up rights guaranteed to them under the law without a fuss.

As others have noted, trying to tie the product to Windows is a specific anti-trust violation for Microsoft since it was formally identified as a monopoly.

I am not a lawyer. (In Maryland, last I heard, the UCITA was passed, overriding the UCC.)

Re:Why Ask?

[gmhowell]

Yes, the UCITA is law in Maryland. That's why, every couple of months, I try to run some of our business software through WINE.

Re:But....why?

[thelexx]

Because there are a few poor bastards like myself out here who want to and is allowed to run Linux on my desktop, but lives in an MS/VFP dominated shop doing other stuff(Java). Would be nice to not have to have two boxes. And it might be a way to finally get the old farts to try Linux if they can run their precious Fox on it.

Wine or Microsoft?

[echucker]

Might wanna switch the graphic and linkage on the story page. The WINE icon pretty much points to nowhere, since the story is linked to the MS category.

pfft

[bogie]

2003-04-18 15:06:30 MS says EULA prevents MS programs from running on (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
(orginally said "...on linux via WINE")

Like I said in my original submission, if MS sticks to calling running apps via WINE illegal due to the EULA, then distro like Suse, Xandros, and Lindows which are basing their distros on Wine are in big trouble.

Re:pfft

[ctid]

SuSE based on Wine? I've used SuSE for years and I've never run Wine at all in that time.

Re:pfft

[kalidasa]

I think his point was that Lindows, at least, is marketing its ability to run MS software under Wine. Don't know why he brought SuSE into it, but then I don't follow SuSE much.

Re:pfft

[MrResistor]

Probably because SuSE has a version that includes Crossover Office. Of course, it's a niche product, just like their various specialty server products you hardly hear anything about.

I think what it comes down to is that the OP knows nothing about SuSE, but remembers hearing that name in the same sentence as wine once.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[pnatural]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the Doctrine of Fair Use (or whatever it is) applies in this case.

If I buy it, I can use it as I damn well please as long as I don't infringe on the copyright.

But if I've learned anything, I've learned that copyright law is twisted and complex, so I'm probably wrong. Can anyone (say, a real lawyer?) attest to the legal aspects of this?

M$ Developed App?

[lostchicken]

Was FoxPro developed by Microsoft, or was it bought, a la Visio/Flight Sim/Countless Others...

If it was bought, I wonder what the developers think of this...

Re:M$ Developed App?

[iggymanz]

Microsoft bought Fox Software in 1992 . I used to be a FoxPro programmer in the late 1980's; it was three times (or more) as fast as dbaseIII, and had better recovery options too. Had its own character based GUI/menu/mouse window programming system, too.

Re:WINE requires a license of Windows to run

[Christianfreak]

You're (sort of) wrong.

The Wine team has reverse-engineered lots of the libraries so you don't need the DLL files. However, at least when I was messing with Wine a lot nothing much worked unless you had the Windows libraries.

I'm hoping that has changed now. Assuming some of the crossover code has worked its way back in to the main Wine tree then it has. I use IE under Crossover (when I'm feeling masiocistic) and there isn't even the hint of Windows on here.

bullshit

[RelliK]

Consider a software vendor who has released a product specifically for a certain class of operating systems. It would be entirely reasonable for them to restrict the use of that application (via the EULA) to avoid deployment on other OS's, due to the unpredictable issues that will pop up.

False. They can say "this product is designed to be used on system X; we will not support it if you use it on system Y". However, nothing gives them the right to demand that you use the product on system X, just like GM cannot demand that you have your car serviced only at Goodwrench. That is an abuse of monopoly, plain and simple.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[Gloume]

Here's a thought. In grade school we learned of a construct know as a _paragraph_. I think MS should review this concept and put it under the consideration of the EULA Review Board for their approval.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[Pofy]

How do you know he has agreed to the EULA to start with? Perhaps he has not.

Re:What?

[samael]

So some non-DB HR monkeys put together a badly documented database, therefore the language is at fault?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

The real issues . . .

[Mindragon]

The fact is people will code in whichever environment they are most comfortable with. Some folks still believe that ADA is an awesome language. Perhaps, within its own world, it is. However, that language isn't accessible to the greatest amount of developers available on the planet for that. If you're hired to do a project for a customer and you want to lock it into your own world so that you're the only one that can fix it when things go wrong, you'll go with ADA or with Vulcan (remember Wayne?).

Now Foxpro IMHO resides in the same world. FoxPro, like FileMaker and Access, offers a nice development interface for low to mid-tier development folks. So, for many businesses, it's cheaper to hire a FoxPro guy to quickly get something done than it is to hire an Oracle developer (not to mention the Oracle licenses and the pricy hardware that goes with it).

Unfortunately for the folks in the FoxPro market, they are actually facing stiff competition from the Linux world. Colleges and Universities are cranking out Perl/PHP/MySQL developers like mad. It's cheaper to teach the concepts of a development environment when you don't have to pay money to license the very development environment you're trying to teach.

Seeing their development community shrink, the FoxPro community, which has been long ignored by Microsoft, has provided a novel response to this very threat. Granted, it's a hack, but it provides an avenue to development that may have not existed for folks in the FoxPro community. Now, all those FoxPro apps will work on a 'nix box.

Microsoft, like Saddam Hussein, is very threatened by anything that will knock their base down. Their main revenue base relies on Windows/Office installations. Foxpro is something that they do receive some monies for from time to time. It may not be a strong profit center, but they do get monies from Windows and Office licenses that those FoxPro applications run in parallel with. They believe that this powerbase is threatened by allowing FoxPro to run on a 'nix/OpenOffice environment.

Microsoft is trying to prevent a repeat of how they got to where they are today. In a sense, they're trying to firewall those openings into that world. Microsoft got to where they are today by allowing development to be practically cheap on their environment (remember GWBasic??). As they progressed, they started to charge the very development community that built their kingdom. For a time (prior to the creation of the MSDN), development was free. Now, it's about $2,700 per developer for a MSDN universal license.

The 'nix community response to the Microsoft challenge has been amazing. Anyone can pickup a comparable development environment, while not as comprehensive as Microsoft's, is quite amazing. Foxpro adds a very interesting piece to that environment.

What Microsoft wants from FoxPro folks is the $200 license fee they get if you buy an $899 Dell with XP pro and Office Small Business for each client. Then the Visual Fox Pro developer can have his application run on that machine which is fully licensed, according to Microsoft EULA.

Realizing the problems with the FoxPro EULA, they made the change to the EULA to protect their market. Prior to the change, anyone could run VFP compiled applications on any operating system. Piracy aside, they would lose the $200 a machine they would ordinarily get by allowing FoxPro application distributions to be open.

Remember, Microsoft has to answer to shareholders. Red Hat doesn't. ...From the Mind of a Dragon.

Re:The real issues . . .

[MrResistor]

Remember, Microsoft has to answer to shareholders. Red Hat doesn't.

Yes it does.

Red Hat is a publicly traded corporation, and therefore has just as much responsibility to its shareholders as Microsoft does. The only thing that might reduce that pressure is the fact that RH is an OSS company, so it has to play by different rules than a CSS company like MS does.

Re:Wait... No Alternative

[vfp_guru]

VFP is not "just another DB"... nothing comes close to the power of the fully OOP VFP developement package, in terms of Rapid development, reusablility of objects and its built-in data engine.

Shocking news!

[kwiqsilver]

From The Register article:

"It appears that Microsoft is tying the tie its applications (developer tools) to their operating system," Hentzen told us.

(I assume he means "trying to tie", quite the tongue twister).
I am just dumbfounded! I can't believe Microsoft might be trying to leverage its market share.

Next he'll tell us that they're more concerned with sales figures than with producing a quality product.
It's just unbelievable that somebody could think that way...

(Is there such as thing as too much sarcasm?)

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[schon]

You just viloated the EULA by posting the EULA.

Only if he accepted it.

see, if he didn't accept it, then he's not bound by it, and can do anything he wants, within the bounds of fair use. :o)

Right, software is licensed

[Hamster Lover]

all because of a little piece of paper inserted into the box. What if GM decided to slip little pieces of paper into their oil filter packages? What is the difference? Do you seriously believe that software is licensed because a piece of paper says so?

Software licenses have become the legal equivalent of an easment; Since everyone uses them it must be legal. A prime example of losing rights you have by not exercising any objections.

I am sorry to say this, but I think you have fallen for the oldest propaganda ploy: say a lie often enough and it will appear to be the truth.

Re:The -beauty- that won't die

[vfp_guru]

VFP is an extremely powerful, fully object oriented, RAD tool for developing database applications. It is often compared with Delphi and VB... neither comparison does it justice: Imagine the OOP power and flexibility of Delphi, combined with the Ease of use (and variant-like weak typing) of VB without the horrible, inconsistent VB syntax (not to mention that VB is not OOP at all). All the variations on C (C++, C#, Java, etc) are more flexible and powerful (without considering data access power), but they take MUCH more code (and libraries) to accomplish the same tasks that can be done gracefully with VFP.

Re:What?

[morgajel]

I think it was a combination of both.
there was very little documentation on the specific version of foxpro that it used(can't remember which version) plus the database connectivity was crappy. it took forever to guess what type it was.

It wasn't completely foxpro's fault, however it left a bad taste in my mouth:/

Re:Why ?

[SmurfButcher Bob]

The real reason that Fox rocks...

Imagine, if you will, a linked list.

Imagine it is infinitely threaded.

Imagine that the threads can be dynamic.

Imagine that the "keys" in the thread can be based on data that doesn't exist (completely, or at all) in the list itself.

The big ol problem faced by SQL based stuff is that it's record-set centric. It works really, really well with gobbs of data, and sucks at individual cases. And god help you if you wish to diverge right in the middle of one of those cases.

Fox is the exact opposite. It loves individual records. It loves recursion. It loves relations. It loves fractional relations. It loves relations that change on-the-fly, record by record, self-transmogrifying-based-on-other-relations that are also changing. If you can express it, it'll work, and it gives you very tight control of the record order.

The primary benefit is simply a matter of "The Big O". Because you're so close to the table structure, Fox can typically get close to the lovely O(n) or n.ln(n) we all desire. Most of the same crap in SQL will end up being n^2, because you cannot make the same assumptions. Consider any operation involving a Group By clause.

The downside is that Fox is file-based. Open your 5GB table on a disk you've got locally, you're fine. Open it across the network... snore... but even that can be beaten, with remote calling of Fox com objects. But at that point, you're probably better with SQL.

bullshit again

[RelliK]

Since the EULA is a legally binding document that the user is entering into willfully, an OS restriction could easily be a part of that.

EULAs are on a shaky legal ground precisely because in most cases the users are not entering into the agreement willfully. You cannot view the agreement until you buy the software, open the box and start installing it -- but once you open the shrinkwrap, you implicitly agree to the terms hidden inside the box and you can no longer return the software. In effect, EULA is an attempt to impose hidden restrictions on you post-sale.

Secondly, even if we assume that EULAs are not intrinsically illegal, that doesn't mean that every clause the vendor puts in the EULA is enforcible. A vendor cannot demand, for instance, that you give them all your possessions after your death. Such a clause would simply be thrown out if the matter ever went to court.

An interesting anecdote I heard illustrates very well what I'm saying. One company decided to put this insane EULA in their product. One of their lawyers protested, but was overruled, so he committed a clever sabotage: he added a clause to the EULA that stated, roughly, "the User shall surrender to the Company their first-born child". The product was shipped with this clause in the EULA. Eventually, this was noticed and the lawyer was fired, but do you seriously believe that those people who bought the early version of the product are required to give their first-born to the company?

Re:bullshit again

[guybarr]

but do you seriously believe that ... are required to give their first-born to the company?

A pound of flesh: no more, no less.

Re:WINE requires a license of Windows to run

[sqlrob]

You're wrong.

I'm running WINE, no native Windows DLLs at all, no FAT32 partition in the slightest.

Some programs are reported to have issues if you don't use the native DLLs, but I only run limited programs anyway. If it doesn't work, I spend a little time trying to get it to work, and if it doesn't, use a different, real Windows machine or simply don't worry about it.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[Crispy Critters]

Maybe in future EULAs, Microsoft will prevent the use of the install CD case to hold open doors in offices with BSD servers.

What is happening here is that companies are using EULAs to essentially write their own laws. If these agreements are considered legally valid, then governments are in effect having their courts co-opted to help in the enforcement of the laws (EULAs) written by the corporations.

In theory, we are protected from this by the freedom to avoid the product if we don't like the EULA, or by anti-monopoly laws if no choice is available. If the anti-monopoly laws were being enforced.

Re:What?

[anticypher]

I've known a few foxpro evangelists over the years. They swear by it for quick and dirty prototypes, but then switch to big reliable systems for the actual projects.

The great thing about FP+/VFP is that a project lead can whip out a semi-working demo prototype in a few days to impress the powers that be. I've seen 6 month projects prototyped in less than 3 days by a good PM, that he can then email around to people as a first look. FP creates a stand-alone application which can just be clicked on and will run on almost any environment.

Prototypes can have working buttons and controls, which can display simple data drawn from the database. There are (what? libraries?) that can simulate a web browser or java applet, ready to go. All in a nice, easy to run self-contained application. It then lets the planners/architects or PMs see what works and what doesn't, and allows rapid changes to be tested. Having a working prototype before actual coding starts can greatly improve the quality of the real project.

But for a production system? Not a chance. Buggy, inefficient, unscalable. And now a M$ product with unreasonable licensing agreements and total lack of support. VFP has its place, early on in product development cycles, or for tiny offices with tiny data sets. That makes it a valuable tool for certain jobs.

the AC

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[mcelrath]

You know, it might be useful to start a database of instructions to install software WITHOUT agreeing to the EULA. Often there is some click-through thing on the CD, but who is to say you're prohibited from extracting the zip or cab files by hand and installing it?

Presumably under such circumstances you would be bound by regular copyright law, rather than contract law, and therefore would actually have fair-use rights. Of course, you'd probably be in violation of the DMCA...

As I've heard my lawyer friends tell it, a contract required the ability to negotiate by both parties, and the signature of both parties. Both elements are lacking or very questionable with EULA's. We need to see them challenged in court. As I understand it you can, for instance, cross out a portion of the contract before signing it. The company doesn't have to accept that contract, but you're within your rights to do so. You have no option to edit the EULA before clicking...

-- Bob

Re:Why Not?

[xsbellx]

OK time to show my ignorance of the current state of FoxPro. I am making a BIG assumption here that FoxPro is some kind of development environment that offers, amongst other things, SQL like database access, screen control and report writing. I have NO idea what the scalablity of FoxPro is nor do I have any idea what its networking capablites are. So based on this woefully uninformed background, my guesses would be:

1) Python
2) Java
3) Perl
4) C/C++
5) Oracle
6) DB2
7) PostgreSQL
8) MySQL

As I am not fully versed in the finer points of FoxPro, I am quite sure many readers will highlight why FoxPro is a better DB than the four listed above and why the language/development interface is better than the four listed above.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[G27 Radio]

IIRC Slashdot was forced to remove a comment by Microsoft a couple years ago because someone posted an EULA. There was a big deal made about it and eventually the Slashdot editors removed the comment to avoid potential legal action from Microsoft. Or do I misremember?

How does this affect the .net ports?

[AxelTorvalds]

What's this mean for .dotgnu and mono? Anything, I think they are getting their own runtimes in order and won't need anything from MS but in the meantime... I've bounced a couple of times on mono, I think copying MS is foolish. I think developing a free high performance rapid programming language and environment is a great idea. Not so sure about C#. I like what they are doing though. Mono is looking really good. It seems like if we could agree as a community more on scripting languages and they weren't as religious we could do some really killer stuff with python or ruby instead of c#, but such is life. I digress.

The fact that they are fucking the community isn't too surprising to me, I don't think MS cares too much for Fox Pro. The more fascinating thing is that the community itself is actively trying to get away from the MS platform. That's very interesting. These custom app environments have always scared the hell out of me as a developer but they never die. People are still doing clipper and fox pro and paradox. This old fox pro cat chose to start making VFP run under WINE rather than change his platform. Sounds like a hellova business to either reimplement legacy custom systems on Linux (maybe even OpenSource) or to court some of the few non-MS companies that own some of that software and port it for them. I don't know if it's ever been approached like that, most people would rather do new stuff. The Loki guys showed us how fast they could port games though, taking a few developers only a few weeks to a few months to get them going.

Maybe I'm optimistic but a few years ago, if you could have produced a Linux verions of Wordstar there would be users of it today, there are people who still have the Lotus 1-2-3 slash programmed in to their fingers and the Wordstar control-D. Autodesk are still dragging their feet with regard to Linux, Pro/E has been demoed on Linux but they aren't pushing it yet. There are a lot of apps that could be ported if someone was willing to do the work. Probably doesn't do a lot of good for these poor FoxPro guys but how many more Foxpros are out there? Remember Ashton Tate? dBase? Clipper?

Re:How does this affect the .net ports?

[Oopsz]

Both jed and emacs have wordstar emulation modes.

I have a friend whose dad (A lawyer) had been using wordstar for *decades* until his computer finally died. My friend set him up with emacs and wordstar bindings on a shiny new P4, and he's been happily working in it ever since..

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[The Bungi]

Actually, it was information on Kerberos

Re:Wait... Tied sales probably illegal

[HermanZA]

Tied sales is illegal in many states and in Canada that one applies to the whole Federation. It always helps to first read your local Sale of Goods Act before whining about a possibly completely unenforceable EULA.

What are some alternatives?

[dunng808]

Assuming that the decision to use an open-source OS (Linux, FreeBSD, ...) on the workstation has been made, what alternatives are there to VFP in both the development role and the customer role? More specifically, what makes JAVA a good choice?

I have used tcl/tk on Linux to build nice windowed apps; works great. I have used Perl to build a cgi script tied to a postgresql database, which also works well. I understand that the tk windowing stuff is useable in Perl, and in Python. And a lot of folks speak well of Python.

Just because VFP can run on Linux under Wine does not mean applications should be developed to use that combination. I want to hear what other people are using in these situations, and what people think ought to be used.

Re:Answer the cluephone, people!

[Trailer Trash]

OK, F/OSS guy.. Give us some case studies on how you make a living with F/OSS. Show us some TOC and ROI numbers. I continue to make a VERY good living with VFP and it constantly remains interesting, never boring.

I don't think you get it. I made a VERY good living with VFP, too. I loved VFP, still do. It has a lot of great features, it's fast, great query optimization, handles large datasets well, etc. But it's a closed-source piece of commercial software.

My problem was that, as a consultant, the buck stops here when my company is doing custom programming. However, I ran into the occassional bug in VFP or Windows (sometimes it was difficult to determine which one) that I simply couldn't fix, and Microsoft didn't care. It'll be fixed in the next release. I heard that more often than I care to think about.

So to answer your question, (assuming TOC should be TCO), there's very little "I" in "ROI", so that's a no-brainer. I was already familiar with Unix systems, so using Linux or BSD was a no-brainer for me, obviously for others of you there may be training issues involved.

The way I make a living now is exactly how I made a living before: deliver applications to customers. It's just that the toolset has changed. Since there's nothing similar in capabilities to VFP in the F/OSS world, I typically just write web-based applications. That's cool, anyway, since I don't have to worry about installing on a bunch of PC's.

I can give you plenty of success stories with VFP, too, all from my own company. But at some point, the licensing issues and source-availability issues will bite you.

Anyway, frankly, do you think Microsoft will support VFP forever? Of course not. I'm not starting a "VFP is dying" argument, since I was laughing at people doing that 8 years ago. But there will come a day when they'll release the final version, bugs and all. And those bugs won't get fixed.

Until then, I say go ahead and run it under Wine on Linux. Quit worrying about the bullies at Redmond.

Michael

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[carrier lost]

Yeah, and if he cut and paste the EULA, he's probably violated the DMCA as well

MjM

Yep, the oldest and nastiest code still runs on it

[lucifuge31337]

combined with a syntactically simple (which I think can still run dbIII+ era code!)

Yep, It sure does. I inherited a nasty FoxBase app (yes, I said FoxBase) a few years back which really didn't play well with modern hardware/OS/networking. I opend the code up in VFP, and it was running fine. A few weeks later, it had a GUI with no major code revisions....the old text-based interface still worked just fine if someone wanted to use it. And I don really consider myself a coder....I was just a lone sysadmin who needed to make some things happen quickly.

Anybody rememeber that crap from a few years back that VFP was going to become a part of VB? Never heard much about it after a year or so. Gotta love those hardware VFP users.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[Graspee_Leemoor]

" You know, it might be useful to start a database of instructions to install software WITHOUT agreeing to the EULA."

Cool idea. Let's implement it in FoxPro.

graspee

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[tulare]

Jesus H. Christ! My head hurts! I much prefer those little windows that hide most of the EULA behind a scrollbar.

At what point does an EULA become unenforcable due to excessive complexity? I'm thinking not so much of FoxPro but, say, Windows XP Home Edition here - a software product aimed at everyone, not just developers, presumably working within large corporations which can afford legal departments to sort pieces of shit like the above EULA out.

My point is, I wonder if a court would side with Joe Luser who didn't understand salient points of an overly-complex EULA and got screwed and subsequently went to court over it. But IANAL. Any Ls out there want to speak to this one?

I think they'll be getting a run for their money

[rkuris]

I think they will be threatened on this front soon enough. Have you seen products like NXj from Unify Corp? It's an awesome front-end gui that generates java, has a simple 4GL, and competes in this area.

Proprietary Software

[Pope Raymond Lama]

'Nuff said.

If one thinks that the benefits from running this or that O.S. are just stability, usability, and price, and that he could change his working enviroment just to get away from some EULA's issues, he is plain wrong.

That is why the major issue, in this thread and many others, is not Linux vs Windows, but proprietary vs free software. Microsoft is probably the most notable example of how much harm can proprietary software do, with it's monopoly generating ever more monopolies.

But, specially developers, should take care of these issues. Even if one feels not int he mood of writing exclusively free software from now on, the free software tools for development will ensure they can do as they choose with the software they produce - some libraries require that the resulting software be free software too, but the compilers and design tools never do this. Market it as proprietary, or free, and absolutely no burdens on the final consumer.

Attention

[Anonymous Coward]

Attention, all you asshole companies who hide behind EULAs and the DMCA! I want you COWARDS to know this:

** I should be able to do AS I FUCKING PLEASE when I want, where I want, how I want without having to put up with your bullshit. **

Thank you.

Re:Answer the cluephone, people!

[Doug Neal]

OK, F/OSS guy.. Give us some case studies on how you make a living with F/OSS. Show us some TOC and ROI numbers.

Obviously I'm not the original poster but I am a "F/OSS" guy and your question seems rather trivial, unless I'm missing something. Return on investment? With a proprietary solution you're investing in license costs as well as developer time. With free software, it's just developer time. You can get the at least as good results, the market VFP is aimed at is well covered by open source products.

How do you make a living with F/OSS? You get paid to develop stuff using it. Duh.

Re:Wait... No Alternative

[MaxwellStreet]

Umm.. Borland's Delphi/CPP-Builder does all this. And Kylix too for Linux machines.

OOP. RAD Tools. Object Reuse. And a variety of data engines you can plug in if you don't want to use theirs.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[RoLi]

Organizing the EULA in paragraphs would make the EULA more readable and would defeat the purpose of the EULA.

Books

[coyote-san]

Pre-DMCA and UCITA you could often come up with a reasonable analogy to books. (Post-DMCA and UCITA, grab a lawyer. But some of us still have hopes that common sense will eventually return and the pre-DMCA /UCITA rules will return.)

Anyway, can an author or publisher suggest that you read the book in a comfy chair with natural lighting over your shoulder from a warm spring day? Sure.

Can they compel it? Can they deny you the right to read it while sitting in on your toilet, flushing each page as you finish reading it? Or from reading it by flashlight or chemlight while camping? Nope.

They can't even say anything when you take their magnus opus home and use it to prop up a wobbly table. Or stick it, unopened, on a decorative bookcase.

Software should be no different. You can't copy it and sell it to others. You can't copy it and give it away. But anything else should be fair game. If you want to use the program disk as a really bad source of random data, it's your choice. If you want to run it on an "unapproved" operating system, it's your loss if you lose data because minimal support will be forthcoming.

But no company should have the right to deny any lawful use of its products.

Unfair use and oil filters

[fm6]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the Doctrine of Fair Use (or whatever it is) applies in this case.

Lawyer or not, "one copy, one user" would seem to follow common sense notions of ownership. Problem is, IP law has less and less to do with common sense, and more and more to do with protecting the revenue streams of various media monopolies. The law, alas, is written by those with the money to buy it.

I just thought of a counterexample to the Ford/GM oil filter argument. Ford could certainly put a chip in its cars that would insist that new oil filters "prove" that they're "authorized". Any third-party filter maker that tried to spoof this chip would be in violation of the DMCA.

Too weird for real life? Guess again!!!

msm files

[TheRealRamone]

in his letter to microsoft, one of the assertions whil hentzen makes is:

2. The EULA seems to prohibit the distribution of certain Microsoft components on non-Windows operating systems - specifically, the files listed in REDIST.TXT, which include the MSMs. However, it is physically possible to distribute and run an executable created by the VFP project manager in conjunction with the VFP runtime DLLs, without needing to bother with the MSMs. Thus it is our opinion that deploying VFP apps to customer workstations or servers using a developer created EXE and the VFP runtime DLLs, regardless of the operating system, is legal.

in case anyone wonders what MSM files are, here is microsoft's definition.

(basically, config files for their installer program)

Re:msm files

[IamTheRealMike]

You can run MSI on Wine of course, but I have no idea whether MSI requires a Windows license or not

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[fuzz6y]

ITYM Doctrine of First Sale

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[Philippe]

Hey, that really *is* longer than my mortgage!

Re:EULA ... MEGO

[RoboProg]

Aaargh!!! It burns!!!

That was painful to even view.

Imagine the cost savings of not having to have a lawyer review such tripe before deciding if you want to / can use a software product.

Of course, my employer has decided that using open source is just too risky, as there might be "intellectual property bombs" lurking within, which is true. OTOH, life is not without risk no matter what decisions you make, and how do organizations decipher what risks / obligations they are submitting themselves to when faced with such a list of rambling "we promise little, but you watch your step" prose???

Re:winsock

[pyrrho]

particularly stupid arn't you. That header says some parts of the code are copyright by Berkeley! MS is giving Berkeley their IP. Yeah right you idiot.

It's common for people to live in denial... but in order to defend some stupid corporation? Why bother?!

But, you're lame claim is actually quite entertaining.. "hey, they didn't use BSD code, they are just releasing windows under the BSD license!" Well, not all of it, just the Winsock header.

IHBT. I will HAND.

It's about corpse' privilege, not justification

[Rares Marian]

Deploying of persons to events of topics that are controversial may cause conflict and problems.

Shall we ban protests?

A company has no right to make a restriction like that just because it causes problems, the only thing that the problem justifies is bringing up the topic to the table. The problem does not justify the solution, only the search for a solution.

This isn't kindergarten.

Two open source versions are available

[Anonymous Coward]

both
Harbour and XHarbour are FoxPro lookalikes (Clipper clones) that run on MS-DOS, MS-Windows, OS/2 and GNU/Linux. They are both open source and have been up and running quite awhile.

xBase - Well Designed Software Tool

[kupci]

Let's not forget, MSFT purchased FP. Fox Software was a small company from Ohio I think that made a well designed, elegant xbase engine. It ran on Xenix/Unix. Our company ran a multi-user business system on Fox that was comparable to a mini-computer system. This was when everybody else would be happy runing Wordperfect with their single user DOS/Windows session. It was/is? extraordinarly flexible, for example there were some extensions written by a programmer at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena that were simply amazing. I think Java/Python/PHP have somewhat taken the limelight, but this illustrates that once you have a great peice of software, people will write other great peices of software that works with it. One programmer who wrote a retail system in Fox called it the COBOL of the 90s. And I agree with you point - the software simply gets the job done. Often consultants/managers get lost in the "we can do this in JAVA (or .NET or whatever) it'll be cool", where the real requirement can be met in good ol FoxPro. So everybody gets distracted by FUD, while the FPers keep writing code that works. But point also taken that RAD tools!= great design.

Re:Why ?

[ntier]

Open your 5GB table and the world will end. VFP is limited to 2GB table size (and 2GB Memo file size). Then again, the VFP community can always fall back on the Channel Tunnel example where they have a 128G Fox DB running quite nicely thank you.

Another reason why Mono was not a good idea

[kupci]

Completely agree, and I would clarify that to be "ban all Windows executables *and* byte code " (or whatever the M$ term is for their Java clone's p-code). Yeah, I think M$ couldn't care less if a few hobbyists run VFP on their Linux box, but if they start running .exe's, or byte code look out! Does anyone remember the spoof (written in the form of a tv show script) in which the Star Trek Enterprise is confronted with a Klingon warrior star ship, their cannons having failed, out comes a bunch of ...lawyers ... with brief cases! Piles upon piles of documents! Unreal hourly rates! Micorsoft was not founded on technical quality, but it's skill in the courtroom. Interesting how those founding traits permeate and define an organization.

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[WNight]

The EULA already isn't enforceable. It's an after-sale restriction. That sort of thing is specifically forbidden in contract law.

The only binding thing in buying Windows is that it will do what it says it will on the back of the box. Copyright law has special provisions allowing you to copy software, as required for the normal expected use. This was the sticking point, software companies claimed you couldn't copy it onto the HD, or into RAM, without agreeing to a license. This isn't true or they wouldn't be bribing politicians to pass the UCITA, the only purpose of which is to make the EULAs binding.

Some quick Xbase history by someone who knows

[Anonymous Coward]

A few minor corrections:

The JPL-DIS from Pasadena, California was largely an English-like query tool and was put onto a CP/M microcomputer on his own time by Wayne Ratliff who named it Vulcan. (As I recall, JPL-DIS was written by JPL to imitate a popular online query tool "Retrieve" used by Tyme-Net in order to reduce JPL costs for the Tyme-Net service. All this came up in great detail during the Ashton-Tate / Fox Software lawsuit wherein A-T tried to prove that they "owned" the dBASE programming language.) Wayne largely did this port to try and help him analyze data for football betting pools, and the name referred to Star Trek's Mr. Spock who never forgot anything. Wayne made a half-hearted effort to sell Vulcan by mail to the new microcomputer / hobbyist market. I think he asked $50 per copy.

George Tate and/or others eventually approached Wayne c. late 1981 and renamed Vulcan to dBASE II in order to suggest it was a more mature product. (That is, there never was a dBASE I) Supposedly that was Hal Pawluk's idea. I think initially Wayne was to get royalties from the sales of dBASE, and I think later when he had a dispute with Ed Esber and Ashton-Tate he was bought out for c. $10 million or so. btw, George Tate died suddenly on Aug 10, 1984 and A-T was never the same. Also, in the early days many of the employees, like George, were Scientologists. A-T was always based in the L.A. area, and almost every product they ever sold was acquired from others. Also, Hal Lashlee was George's early partner, but he did not want his name used so they made up the name Ashton. But, there actually were two Ashton's: 1. A "Joe Ashton" was made up in an early advertisment For years afterward every now and then someone would call tech support and claim to know Joe Ashton in order to try and get better service. 2. For some years there was a parrot in a cage in the A-T lobby named Ashton. They actually taught the parrot to say "Framework!" a later A-T product coincidentally developed by a Scientologist.

Meanwhile, FoxBASE / FoxPro is an example of "clone" software. Dave Fulton and others largely centered around Bowling Green University in Ohio wanted to sell accounting software and wrote their own dBASE-like runtime engine to run it. As it turned out, the runtime engine was more popular than the accouting software, and they created FoxBASE which would largely run any dBASE III code but faster. They also added commands to the language to give it features that dBASE did not have. Their huge break came when Ashton-Tate allowed Fox Software them to have a booth at their 1986 developer's conference.

Also, FoxPro 1.0 was one of the most amazing DOS products ever. I don't know why so many slashdotters have been critical of Xbase (the generic term used to mean dBASE-like languages) It is a tremendous 4GL - the only real problem is that due to upward compatibility the language has become clutted with old commands over the years. IMO M$'s "visual" interface that they largely grafted on from VB is very slow and cumbersome to use, but even M$ can't detstroy the legacy of that team of about six programmers from Ohio that came up with FoxPro 1.0

I doubt anyone else reading slashdot knows more about the history of Xbase or has worked in more areas of it than I have, continuing to this day. If anyone knows who I am why don't you email me and say "Hey, I saw your Xbase history on slashdot!"

btw, Ken Levy now of M$ has overall been a great asset to the Fox community for years, even if his present position forces him to wear a black hat for a hopefully short while.

A one time 'Tater

Re:Why ?

[SmurfButcher Bob]

ROFL, dammit... ok, five 1G tables, related to each other by recno(). Heh.

Re: Everywhere outside US ?

[guybarr]

Well, anywhere where even the most basic consumer protection laws exist (= everywhere outside the USA)

Everywhere ? like, worse than Ethiopia, Romania, Lebanon, Argentina ?

IANA expert, but AFAIK, consumer status in the US is much better than anywhere else except, perhaps, some parts of western europe.

Not that it's always good enough, or even mediocre in the US, but you can be merry, as most of the world is in a deeper shithouse ...

Re:Wait...Here's the EULA

[PhxBlue]

I sometimes wonder how this shit gets modded "informative" when the poster cuts and pastes without spending any time on formatting whatever it is they're trying to post. Did any of the people who modded this actually try to read it? I tried, until my eyes started watering from the run-on, single-paragraph format.

Re:Wait... No Alternative

[Havokmon]

Umm.. Borland's Delphi/CPP-Builder does all this. And Kylix too for Linux machines.

I'd agree with everything but the RAD stuff. Foxpro actually allows you to program 'interactively'. You get a command window, and can execute a single line of code, just to see what would happen.

The commands are stupid-simple, and unfortunately, Kylix doesn't open VFP tables. I need VFP on Linux, because I have legacy tables from proprietary applications to support :/

Book licence -- Ethical, simple, reasonable...

[Spoing]

It is not the slightest bit reasonable ever for a company to be able to control how you use their product after you have given them money in return for the right of such use.

I agree with you, though there are limits.

Microsoft's actions are absurd; even if they didn't have the lawyers or the monopoly, the use of that product is not up to them only the reselling of the content. When supporting it, yep they can limit that support to specific configurations, but not use. Even if the licence allows partial redistribution (runtime or complied results), where it is redistributed to is none of their business. If I want to use it on my toaster, they don't have any say. When they do speak up or threaten, they should be slapped down.

Additionally in your favor, I found it difficult to make an exception for satelite TV descramblers where you own the hardware and the content is literally raining down on you. Radar detectors fall in the same basic category. Laws that restrict this usage have a potential of erroding other rights. (That said, kudos to Hughes on using logic over lawyers in preventing folks from getting content gratis.)

Here's another more debaitable example and a corrilary. I've used it for years as a rule of thumb to see if a licence for content is reasonable;

Implied book licence

If you bought 1 tape of StarWars in the 90s, Lucas Films & Fox have a right to sue you into oblivion if you set up a business that did nothing but make copies of that tape or transfer it to other media for the next decade and resold the results.

OTOH, if you had a shop that allowed people to make backups or transfers -- even if your shop delt only with StarWars tapes -- there should be no restriction.

The spirit of the initial transaction 'buy this product and watch StarWars as many times as you want' is intact. Like a book, the seller should reasonably expect that for each copy sold only one copy will be in use at a time.

This means that if you make a copy and send one to your cousin in a comma, there's no problem. If she wakes up, there is a problem; both you and she can reasonably use the movie at the same time -- even if neither of you actually do so.

Yes, that is not how the laws are now (insert rant on DMCA nonsense). On the other hand everyone I know makes copies (many even thrust them on me as gifts). Ethically, I buy what I use if that's the expectation from the creator or agents of that creator; I have a copy of DMB's Lillywhite (unreleased) along with a bought copy of Busted Stuff (most of the same thing).

Re:Book licence -- Ethical, simple, reasonable...

[Crispy Critters]

If you bought 1 tape of StarWars in the 90s, Lucas Films & Fox have a right to sue you into oblivion if you set up a business that did nothing but make copies of that tape or transfer it to other media for the next decade and resold the results.

Agreed, but an important distinction is that George Lucas did not write the copyright laws. For good or for ill, a sufficient number of our legally selected legislators approved them and they became law.

I also agree with whoever posted it that warranties and support are a separate issue. For example, if I call up Sony and complain about the Linux kernel on my laptop, they'll laugh in my face because it was sold to me with Windows on it. But this is a far cry from them not allowing me to install Linux in the first place. (By the logic of the parent-parent post, Sony would be right to forbid me to run Linux on my laptop, because they don't support it and poor performance could hurt the reputation of their machines. That's a scary thought.)

Re:Book licence -- Ethical, simple, reasonable...

[Spoing]

Yep, no question about the companies not being responsible for support of a configuration they did not ship.

After all, if you buy something from Penguin Computing you don't expect them to answer questions about x86 Solaris...they might, but there is no expectation that they are responsible to do so.

With a book-style licence, these issues are largely eliminated.

If I glue a book cover on a Bantam paperback, Bantam isn't responsible for the cover if it starts to peel at the edges or stain my hands.

Bantam is responsible if half way through reading the book I realize that the pages repeat themselves or the last page is just missing.

Would Bantam owe me a new book cover too? Probably not, though good arguments can be made either way.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[RickHunter]

Show me where, on the outside of the box in prominent writing, it tells me that this is a license, not a sale. The text must be clearly visible to me before I hand over my money - any terms they try to add after that are not only unethical, but blatantly illegal.

Then again, we've never had a White House softer on real crime than the one we have now, so it'll be at least another year before anyone will get slapped for this.

Re:Can GM stop Ford cars from using its oil filter

[mdielmann]

The difference is, you've purchased a physical product, both the car and the filter - you can do whatever you want with them, including squish them into a little composite block.

With software, you have purchased/been given a license to use the software, under whatever restrictions (yes, there are some limits, however little that is enforced) the vendor wishes to impose. If you accept, then you are bound by it. If you don't, you don't have a valid license and can be sued under piracy laws. Keep in mind, even the GPL is a license (although it mentions copyright) with priveleges and restrictions imposed. If you don't abide by the license, legal woes may ensue.

He's right about VB

[dh003i]

VB is total crap. No serious developers actually use it. MS has been trying to push that crap on us for a long time now, but no-one's taking. Partly because so many of the script-kiddies, virus', and other malicious code are VB.

Colleges still teach C as the primary language for development. And that's the way it should be. Java is only good for net-apps -- no-one's going to be writing word-processor, internet-browsers, or anything else of significane with it. Some of the various object-orientated C's are useful, like Objective-C. I should be noted, however, that it's perfectly possible to write object-oriented code in C; and perfectly possible to write C-style code in C++.

As for VB, it's just total and complete crap.

Clip

[oohp]

Why the hell would anyone want to run Visual FoxPro or Linux in WINE, when there are native, free alternatives. Well not the IDE anyway.

Re:WINE requires a license of Windows to run

[MrResistor]

Wine does require a license of windows to run (it requires DLLs from Windows).

Nope. I've got wine running just fine without a single Windows dll. Well, it runs fine enough to play Half-life and its decendants anyway, which is all I use it for.

I think it's Win4lin you're thinking of.

Re:bullshit (good title)

[tgrigsby]

I was all fired up to send a message about this -- and found you'd hit it on the head. This is an abuse of monopolistic advantage.

Unless we use Linux alternatives.

The guys using VFP are certainly at a temporary disadvantage if they learn something new, but if M$ is going to take the position that VFP can only be used with their OS, and if cross platform alternatives exist, then what's the problem? They learn to use Delphi if they want a (semi) cross platform visual environment. Or any of a number of Java IDEs like JBuilder. And step up to the latest and greatest technology rather than dragging a dead horse around. For surely, if M$ wants to beat people up for using a different OS with their products, then a dead horse is what it deserves to be.

Re:Wait... No Alternative

[vfp_guru]

Also, While I like Delphi (though I haven't tried Kylix yet), VFP embodies simply power... Delphi is as type-demanding as C++, which really is a drag when trying to develop a functionality-rich application.

Delphi produces lean, fast programs, but it can take alot of code to accomplish simple things.

VFP produces new, powerful features with little code, and isn't 'anal' about data types.

Re: Everywhere outside US ?

[RoLi]

Everywhere ? like, worse than Ethiopia, Romania, Lebanon, Argentina ?

None of those countries have adopted the DMCA, so yes, pretty much everywhere.

Re:Ignorance is bliss...

[gandy909]

Now I feel slammed! I certainly did not mean my response to be troll-ly...I was completely serious!

Clarification??? from Microsoft

[NickCauston]

Microsoft have now issued their official clarification on this issue: Visual FoxPro was designed and tested for use in creating applications that run on the Microsoft Windows platform; the same applies to the components that are provided to developers for redistribution with Visual FoxPro-based applications. If a developer wishes to distribute the Visual FoxPro runtime with an application, the runtime may only operate in conjunction with a Microsoft Windows platform. As with any contract, you should seek your own legal counsel's advice when interpreting your rights and obligations under the Visual FoxPro End User License Agreement. http://gotdotnet.com/team/vfp/vfp_eula_runtime.txt

Ken Levy's GENSCRNX

[kupci]

Gads, you're right. He gave the software out for free, I think it was even open source. Sold his soul like Anders Hellsberj of Delphi fame? I'm really wondering what folks like Miquel de Icaza are thinking spending the time writing MONO. Perhaps useful as a C# clone, but I'm sure Microsoft will use a similar argument for running C# bytecode on non-Microsoft platforms such as MONO. Here's an excert from The Register: "Prior to the demonstration, Hentzen received a call from Ken Levy, Microsoft's Visual FoxPro marketing manager, telling him that he would be in violation of the EULA (End User Licensing Agreement) for VFP if he demonstrated (or ran) the development tool on Linux."