Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!tgate!ka3ovk!ki4pv!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
From: fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: PARADOX - am I missing something
Message-ID: <402@icdi10.UUCP>
Date: 13 Aug 89 20:26:43 GMT
References: <2086@dvinci.USask.CA>
Reply-To: fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home)
Organization: Compudata Inc. Phila PA
Lines: 28

In article <2086@dvinci.USask.CA> reeves@dvinci.USask.CA (Malcolm Reeves) writes:
->I have just started to work with Borland's PARADOX 3.0 - it appears to
->be a very flexible, reasonably fast, and very configurable DB with
->lots of features. It seems intuitive and easy to learn. I've used lots
->of DB programs on PC's and it appears to be one of the best. WHY DO I
->NEVER SEE ANY REFERENCE TO IT IN COMP.DATABASES. Does PARADOX have some
->fatal flaw I have yet to discover (I know it doesn't use SQL - yet) but
->am I missing something?

Here we are, all waiting to jump on the PARADOX wagon as soon as they deliver 
their promised Unix version and you suspect foul play or devious bugs lurking 
in the background.

Seriously, this is heavy on the Unix side of database discussion and, except 
for the ubiquitous DB_base III/IV bug talk often leading to Foxbase, there 
are lots of DOS datahandlers not discussed here.

I'm still waiting for some discussion on MDBS or DB_Vista network/relational 
database work. The net is a fickle thing but surely Borland will not let us 
down with their promises to supply the void in Unixland with something better 
than DB_base.
Fred Rump  

-- 
This is my house.   My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 
26 Warren St.             uucp:          ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010       domain:  fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846          "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..."  -  Schiller