Sorry Greg, but I think you're wrong on most of your points. I agree with Dave Watts and Hal Helms comments.
With "commercial" application servers, it is a common practice to pay for development server licenses. Most of commercial application servers don't even have the equivalent of the free CF Developer Edition (for example, Websphere AS is only free during 6 months (trial), then you have to buy a licence, whatever you do with it : dev, staging, production...). If you cannot understand this practice, then perhaps should you go for open source technologies. >From now on, please stop this thread on CF-TALK, the topic is related to CF-PARTNERS. Thanks. Benoit Hediard www.benorama.com -----Message d'origine----- De : Greg Bullough [mailto:gwb@;outofchaos.com] Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2002 13:42 À : CF-Talk Objet : RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise? At 09:19 PM 10/17/02 -0400, Vernon Viehe wrote: >I don't see where we're raising the cost of entry, we actually dropped the >price of Pro alot. You're raising the cost of entry by differentiating the Enterprise and Pro editions along the lines of a basic programming construct (specifically, JSP tags) for the first time in the history of the product. The difference between $1000 and $5000 is the increase. >The developer's edition is not intended to serve all development needs in >all circumstances, Why call it 'developer's edition' then? Why not call it 'random collection of function that we hope some people may find useful?' >it's intended to serve a single developer in their daily work. For >occasional proof of concept demos, there are creative alternatives such as >installing the trial/dev on a fresh system > and demo'ing within 30 days, or putting the demo up at a CF hosting service. Oh great. I'll just put the demo system up on my laptop and demo it within 30 days, and EITHER THROW AWAY THE LAPTOP OR REINSTALL THE WHOLE OS NEXT MONTH WHEN I NEED TO DO THE SAME THING. That makes sense. This is why I get infuriated with the software vendor types (of which I was once one) who get paid regardless. They seem to forget that the time I may spend screwing around trying to get around the shortcomings in their thinking is time I probably DON'T get paid for billable work. >For ongoing development needs, purchasing a licensed development server >currently is part of setting up shop, like purchasing the development >server hardware. I haven't seen any calls for free development hardware, >but if those companies start to give away free development hardware, we'd >be able to get this request through easily. =) Let's not be flippant, shall we? Production costs for copies of hardware vs. software are two different things. What you're saying is that Macromedia is not willing to make any investment in its developers (and don't point to the Partner Program...right now that is more of another profit center than an investment). Fine, Vernon. I get your message: 'If you want support from the vendor, then go elsewhere.' Loud and clear. Your hubris is showing. See ya. Greg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
