Yes but why bother? I'm sure if they were getting thousands of complaints then they would do so just for some peace and quiet, but my bet is that not many people really care. My old cfdeveloper.co.uk site ran on ASP because I found a community portal app that did the job, I received the odd comment from people because it was ASP and not CFML, but out of the thousands of members the site had, this was insignificant and not enough to bother me or warrant me changing it.
Russ -----Original Message----- From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz] Sent: 28 January 2011 14:00 To: cf-talk Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive? Fair enough. Though it's still kind of missing my point. My point is that is Adobe doesn't use CF it should at least mask the use of other technologies. That's easy to do and fairly cheap. You can _look_ like you aren't using php without much trouble. On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Russ Michaels <r...@michaels.me.uk> wrote: > > Wow, this is way off topic now eh! > > > There is a well known saying "use the best tool for the job". And as > Dave will agree, CF is not always the best tool for the job, and I > guess Adobe themselves even know that, even Microsoft don't claim that > Winodws/IIS is the best solution for every job. > > For example, If I want to write a custom app from scratch, or it needs > to be something I can easily update myself then I would use CF every > time of course as I know CF and I love CF. > However if I simply want an App that does a specific/common job and I > don't plan to get my own hands dirty in the code, I will first look to > the open source world, and usually I will find a PHP solution. > For example, if you wanted to build a social networking community then > there is really nothing like this for CF, you would have to write it > yourself, which is a lot of work/time/cost. Or you could go and > download ELGG, Dolphin or one of the many well-known PHP solutions and > be up and running in no time. > If you have the time and thousands of $ available to roll your own > exactly how you want, then awesome, otherwise it is really a no > brainer. And this particular scenario covers so many apps and > situations, if you have a client who doesn't have the budget for you > to write a CF solution and there is no open source CF solution, what > do you do? Look outside the box for a solution that will fit the > job/budget. > > It would be gr8 if CF had as many open source apps as PHP, but > CFdevelopers tend to want to be paid for their work, which I guess is > only fair if they had to pay for CF, plus of course the proportion of > cfdeveloper compared to php developers is tiny, so clearly there is > not as many people out there with the time or inclination to write OSS > apps. > Perhaps Railo/OBD will change this, but not by very much I reckon. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com] > Sent: 28 January 2011 06:40 > To: cf-talk > Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive? > > > > This isn't actually true at all, Dave. To give one high profile > > example, take Hotmail. Microsoft got a huge amount of shit for the > > fact that Hotmail ran on Linux (or BSD? I think BSD) with Apache. > > Sure, they bought Hotmail and that was the primary reason. But > > people kept saying "oh, Windows and IIS can't handle the load so > > they have to stick with BSD". There were plenty of tech articles > > about whether Microsoft could actually run Hotmail on Windows, how > > expensive it would be, etc. Finally, MS eventually moved it over > > but they had to put significant time and energy into the project. > > They even announced that they had moved it to Windows only to have > > to retract that statement a couple days later, admitting that some > > of the bits still ran on BSD. I seem to recall that MS totally > > fucked up Hotmail in the move as well but that could have been some > > of their other major screw ups. > > Microsoft acquired Hotmail in 1997. They migrated it to Windows in > 2000/2001. Apparently, they didn't feel the need to do this very quickly. > And I think there's a significant difference. At the time, there was a > real, open question about whether Windows could fill this niche. > Current versions really couldn't. NT 4 and IIS 3 and 4 weren't capable > of doing this. But no one doubts that, say, the free RIA tools site > could be written in CF. Large parts of the main Adobe site are, in > fact, written in CF. > > > Eating your own dogfood is still an important concept in the tech > > world and I think you sell it short. > > Adobe has a lot of different dog food, though. They have CF, > LiveCycle, Day Software, and Contribute/Dreamweaver. Which one of those should they pick? > As a tools vendor, they make products that explicitly are designed to > interact with Java, ASP.NET and PHP: > Dreamweaver, Flash Builder, LiveCycle Workbench. The Flex team > probably has more customers using PHP than CF. The Flash team certainly does. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > http://training.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on GSA > Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers, online, or onsit > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:341616 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
