Almost all our developers develop on their local machine. There's a typically a "test environment" available but that's typically used when sanitizing and testing a build in dev before releasing to QA...
-----Original Message----- From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:38 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: X-server? <snip> I'll reply in-line > There are lots of web developers out there (myself included) that > use Macs. Yes, client side. Not server side. > Many develop applications that are hosted by outside services. Once again, client vs. server. > Those who develop in CF develop apps that will be run on CF servers > on some platform. That's a given > Point 1 -- These Mac developers contribute to CF sales > > Many Mac developers do *not* write Web programs for CF because they > cannot run CF on a > local machine -- they are more productive in Java, PHP, Perl, > whatever. I would beg to differ. OS/X is a recent development, ie: last year. This means that it is so new, that for many developers, their "feet" for server side deployment and application design are not quite balanced on the deck yet. Not to mention, in an ideal environment, you DEPLOY your application to a development machine. Not to the local machine. You should not test your applications on a server which DOES NOT mimic your production machine. This means if you develop on a WindowsXP machine, but deploy to a Win2k box, something has gone wrong. It should be develop on WinXP, deploy to TEST server (running win2k), verify everything still works as is, then redploy to live machine. ::shrug:: Just me being retentive again. I'm a Linux junkie. I develop on windows, or OS/2, or BeOS, or OS/X, etc, deploy to a test linux server, verify the code runs, then redeploy to production. > Point 2 -- These Mac developers are contributing to the sales of > MM's competitors > > The port of the Developer system to Mac OS X alleviates this > problem to some extent -- > Likely, independent contractors like myself will jump at the chance > to run CF locally. This > should increase their productivity and they should be able to > deploy more apps to supported > CF platforms. So do BSD developers, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. How many actual corporate application servers have been ported to OS/X. Barely ANY, if any at all. You can run PHP and PERL. The same theory applies to the other niche market Unix/BSD world. We CANNOT port to every single platform where we have any sort of competitor, we do not have the in house staff capable of doing so. The sheer resources needed would be astronomical. > > Point 3 - Availability of an unsupported developer system on OSX > will likely make a > contribution to CF sales and detract from competitive sales > > The fact that the port is unsupported means that it takes a lot of > cajoling, wheedling (not bribes), > and time (especially time) to get problems fixed, or even addressed. > > Likely, there will not be mass acceptance of CF as a development > platform, by Mac users, until > there is a supported developer platform -- CF running locally, not > just DWMX* This is misnomer. Who says mac users will suddenly "See the Light" and start developing CFML when we port an application *server* to a primarily CLIENT-SIDE operating system? It's like developing a copy of dreamweaver to, say, Tru64. Your porting a client side application to a server side OS. Same applies to Linux, Solaris and BSD. > * It's ironic that DWMX on the Mac contributes to the sales of CF > competitors -- Mac users can > develop in competitive languages that *do* run on the Mac, while > CF does not. No, empowering the user is what Macromedia is about. Therefore, selling client-dev applications contributes to total revenue for Macromedia, which makes us happy. This does not mean that we should force CFML down the throats of Mac developers by removing functionality in DWMX to force them to use the new shiny CFMX for OS/X. > Point 4 - Lack of a supported CF Mac developer platform will likely > detract from CF sales and > contribute to competitor sales. > > Those who have used CFMX on Mac OS X (I know most of them) think > that is a sweet system -- > superior to the other available options. I can't make this > statement, because I have never > developed on a Win, Solaris or Linux box. > > I can give this opinion: CFMX ON Mac OSX is the *Best* Web > Application development system, > running on the *Best* Operating system running on the *Best* > Personal Computer. > I can give this opinion: CFMX on Linux is the best Web Application development system, running the *Best* Operating system running on the *Best* Personal computer. I betcha 30$ that my Linux workstation (Dual Pentium 4 1.4 GHZ, 2 gigs of Ram, an brand new Radeon card) running a very customized version of Gnome could blast away most of your OS/X apps in speed. Not to mention, running VMware, I have access to those windows application I need. What you just said was opinion, I know, but look at the flip side of the coin. > Many will agree with me. > > Some simple test results, a few discussed in recent threads, show > that that Mac platform performs > quite well, and is price-competitive, if not superior. To Intel? Never. 3.5k for a basic workstation is *not competitive*. Of course, I'm also a Linux/Intel Zealot. Heck, I run windows at home on an Alienware intel machine for gaming. The market saturation for Mac's is not even close to that of intel, this is a sad, but true, fact. > Point 5 -- Likely MM is missing an opportunity to proselytize Mac > developers to CF, to their > detriment and to the advantage of their competitors. > > If MM were to offer a supported Developer version of CF on Mac OS > X, it would likely be the > easiest, and fastest to install. Mac OS X already includes (has > installed), Java and Apache Web > Server. These are not necessarily installed on the CF supported > platforms. A good part of every > CF install (and many of the problems during beta) involve > installation of Java, a Web Server, and > integrating these things with the CFMX/JRun systems. Incorrect. We ship an internal JRE. The OSes we support come with Webservers by *default*. By bringing out OS/X, Apple is JUST catching up to the curve. > Mac OS X has a proven, well-defined, automatic process that > maintains and applies software > updates -- this include everything from updates to the underlying > OS to 3rd-party application > programs such as Microsoft IE. Yes. However, so does Linux, windows, BSD, etc, etc. > I suspect a CFMX product on Mac OS X would cost MM less to support > and maintain, than on > other platforms -- there is just a lot less code and a lot less > integration -- a complete, stable, > predictable platform. And a lot less market penetration. > Point 6 -- Costs of supporting CF on the Mac OS X platform would > likely be less than other > platforms. This means different numbers would be plugged into the > ROI calculation. Incorrect. It would be the *same* as the other platforms. > If MM offers a Developer version of CFMX on Mac OS X, they will > likely find an eager audience of > potential *new users* of CF. Yes, this is true. > Apple will likely promote the availability of CFMX Developer on > Mac OS X. MM could defray > much of the marketing costs -- others will gladly do it for you. Maybe. Who knows? > This might be a simple, inexpensive way of "sticking your toes in > the water" to measure > acceptance and potential without incurring a lot of costs. Ah! But who takes the support calls? What happens if we decide to drop OS/X? How many developers do we loose then? > Point 7 -- Costs of marketing CF on the Mac OS X platform would > likely be less than other > platforms. This means different numbers would be plugged into the > ROI calculation. Incorrect, it would be the same. > Given, a supported CFMX Developer version for Mac OS X, there would > likely be much pressure > to release a supported CFMX production version(s) --- and the > problem with this is??? The problem is that mac's have not "broken into" the server side market. > These sales would be *New Business" full price sales, not upgrades > from prior sales. And much like other new platforms, would quickly plateau to a given amount of users therefore tapering off revenue into a steady stream. You'd have 1 good quarter, and the ones after that would be "eh". > Again, emergence of this "Full" product would realize the same (if > not more) benefits of the > Developer product on Mac OS X -- lower maintenance and support > costs; lower marketing > costs; a potential customer set that is willing and able to buy; > likely heavy promotion by Apple; > the *buzz* of the industry in all the trade pubs; a plethora of > new books, articles, training, > certification and other services. Possibly, yes. How many Cf-Linux/Unix books are there? How many trade publications talk about how great CFMX/Unix-linux is? Trust me, I've dealt with nothing BUT niche markets since I cam here 3 years ago. > Point 8 -- Likely MM should evaluate CFMX on Mac OS X as they would > any new product in > a new market. There is a potential here, to create, and dominate a > very profitable market. > Sometimes you have to not go by the procedures, take the risks, do > the best justification > you can -- and then take action Trust me, I know. I'm playing devil's advocate. > If Jeremy Allaire, hadn't done so, we would all be doing different > things. > "zing" ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
