On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tracy Pearson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've had conversations with a paid outside technicians that our clients have > hired that refuses to believe the anti-virus they are so fond of (religious > about) is causing corruption on the clients workstation and we have faulty > code base. No, it's not a faulty code base, it's just something that was > designed for a decade ago and these aggressive anti-virus programs, agreed > are needed, don't need to check files that won't physically run. --------------------- I use to keep sensitive data in a database that had a .com extension instead of .dbf. Fox was easy at doing stuff like that. Today the AV software would go ballistic on a .com file that changed. Just saying that as things change today VFP will probably be more in the cross hairs over time. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
