another end. My (very large) company won't consider either product because
their both too cheap - and so (goes the management opinion) are not fit for
enterprise use.
We're not allowed to use open source software for the same reasons: free
means "no support' (which is bogus) and poor quality compared to enterprise
vendors.
Now wait for the punchline. What did this company decide to standardize on?
What tool meets their criteria?
IBM WebSphere on IBM Apache. So we end up spending many, MANY thousands of
dollars on essentially branded open source software. (Which, has an aside,
is so difficult to configure and learn that we've yet to produce any
applications significantly better than our legacy CF 4.5 apps).
Jim Davis
_____
From: Claremont, Timothy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: "FREE" BD vs. "$$$$" CF
The "free" BD vs "$$$$" CF comes down to politics in our organization.
It was a struggle to get my employer to warm up to CF 4.5. I literally
had to formally donate my copy, make an effective application, then beg
for forgiveness instead of asking for permission. Slowly but surely,
there were converts.
Moving to 6.1 at this point means the cost of an upgrade ($600 or so).
Moving to the "free" BD means a hard sell to management that we should
make use of a product that is "free". And, with the ironic comedy worthy
of a Dilbert cartoon, management is quite steadfast in the opinion that
taking a huge gamble with the sanctity of our data with a company like
Macromedia at a cost of $600 is more prudent than the "free" route with
the lesser known New Atlanta. The humor is that 4.5 (the version I
demonstated with) was an Allaire product. New Atlanta vs Allaire, in the
medical arena, is not exactly the makings of a big draw prizefight.
Now, I could go through a long educational process that explains the
pros and cons of going with a Macromedia vs a New Atlanta, but the $600
savings gets eaten away really quick by the time I prepare a
presentation, bang my head on the walls of my cubicle, make enemies in
IS for being a rebel, spend $$$ on Tylenol, etc.
So, as painful as it might be for an organization such as ours to pony
up the $600 for a CF upgrade, the relative cost of going with New
Atlanta is not worth it. The name "Macromedia" garners enough
recognition from management and the IT staff where they are at least
willing to let me get the product onto the network. I can't afford to
give up that credibility at the cost of $600.
Is this a jab on my part against New Atlanta? Not at all. I am merely
illustrating why, in MY CASE, $600 for CF is "cheaper" than $0 for
BlueDragon.
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
