---
> From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > > Right.
> > > But if your hosting provi
al Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:56 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
> us?)
>
>
> Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't
: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us?)
Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't
understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of
shear frustration.
Sean wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm confused... but doesn't sandboxing cover the requirements adressed here?
Yes.
> Admittedly? if you're dealing with non enterprise licences you don't have
> sandboxes...
I bet that if you know a bit about Java you can write your own
.policy files and hack Sandbox Sec
This topic has been overloaded with comments, debates, etc. If you have
something to post of technical merit, PLEASE post it with a subject that
reflects the contents.
Thank you
p.s. debating semantics is NOT of technical merit for CF-Talk and should be
taken to CF-OT.
~~~
ember 2003 1:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Better yet, why can't MM add some hosting-friendly options to the server global
settings so that they can address a need for a major customer segment?
Does a list of potential options exist? If we don't a
top of the To-Do list.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is provide
Thomas Chiverton wrote:
> On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>>>Right.
>>>But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
>>
>>Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
>>thing.
>
>
> I don't think they'd have any choice.
> Of course, what the
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > Right.
> > But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
>
> Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
> thing.
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file whi
> Right.
> But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
>
Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
thing.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~~
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 14:53 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> > I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but
> > uses
> > Java's i/o layer inside.
>
> CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File.
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffil
> I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but
> uses
> Java's i/o layer inside.
>
CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
On Wednesday 03 Sep 2003 19:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> some of us dont know what that is matt.
> a lot of us dont know java & maybe dont have time to learn it.
> a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:)
I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but uses
Java's i/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> btw~ please read all my message as well
> i cant read it if it aint there
I think he did, and it showed the messages were there. You just
have to scroll down in your own message, you have quoted the
entire thread. Or use the archive.
Jochem
~
gt;> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> | >I used the word "free".they use the word "included"
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Semantics, I know, but here is the pag
tp://www.clickdoug.com
>>>>> Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all
>>>>> databases. ISP rated:
>>>>> http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
>>>>> Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy:
>>>>
File system access is not required for there to be a vulnerability. You can
do things like grab sessions from other applications running on the same
server and modify the sessions. Anyone running an e-commerce app on a
shared host and using session variables is suceptible to tampering by
someone
porate Anti-virus policy:
>>>> http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
>>>> ==
>>>> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>>
gt;>
>> Thanks,
>> -Brad
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>>
>>
>> Who n
t; -Brad
FB> -Original Message-
FB> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FB> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
FB> To: CF-Talk
FB> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
FB> Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
FB> -Ma
ECTED]
www.navtrak.net
office 410.548.2337
fax 410.860.2337
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
some of us dont know what that is matt.
a lot of us dont know
irus policy:
>>> http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
>>> ==
>>> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7;t know Java :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
>
gt; Matt,
>
> Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in
> Coldfusion MX?
>
> Thanks,
> -Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: D
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote:
> Most Shared providers disa
vice, my job isn't done!
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
>> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats ne
Matt,
Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX?
Thanks,
-Brad
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or
People who don't know Java :)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wedn
w.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
> ==
> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003
lk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
| An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill
databases, plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty thi
CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| >I used the word "free".they use the word "included"
|
| Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
|
| http://www.uniserve.
If you remove CFMX's ability to change the classpath then you would
also remove my ability to change it. However, that is not the general
configuration used by hosting companies.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~
Matt Liotta wrote:
> CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath
> it uses.
That is not my experience. If the CF MX base directory is
configured to be read-only, CF MX will not write there. But with
the current bug in the way sandboxes are inherited to lower
director
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill databases,
> plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at the hosting
> company would even have a clue about what's going on.
Not unless you are running CF as root/system
;CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> >I used the word "free".they use the word "included"
>
> Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
>
> h
CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath
it uses.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lis
Matt Liotta wrote:
> I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked
> only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a
> CFMX instance.
You mean as in uploaded a .jar and added it to the class path
etc? Wouldn't that require write permissions to the JVM
TECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:40 am
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
> Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably
> immediatelyclose your account upon the appearance of code such as
> that - All of them d
I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked
only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a
CFMX instance.
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn
you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2
Matt Liotta wrote:
> Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a
> CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example...
>
>
> badThing = CreateObject("java", "a.BadThing");
> // is the same as...
> foo = "";
> clazz = foo.getClass();
> claz
Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF
related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I
can c
ing a security hazard?
>
> Cheers
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions
==
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:13 AM
Subj
hart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting
--
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX
p
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> "There's no such th
1:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new
for us? )
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote:
> We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox
> security to prevent any "accidents" ;-)
How does Sandbox Security
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote:
> We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox
> security to prevent any "accidents" ;-)
How does Sandbox Security protect you from accidents with COM
objects like the FSO?
Jochem
~
VPS -
http://www.cfxhosting.com/Plans/s_cfxadvancedVPS.cfm
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us? )
I know this has been covered before but has ther
rners.
Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for
hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list.
-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWM
.
Just want to make sure people ask the right questions when they look for
hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list.
-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats
> "There's no such thing as a free lunch"
>
> I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty
> penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to
> customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term "FREE" and not
> "included" when describing the
land.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very h
Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am
> (CrystalTech).
>
&g
it greatly.
Jim Davis
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of
u
003 12:19 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
>>
>>
>> I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
>> this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that
>> regard. However,
tlanta.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:36 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
>
>
> I thought that earlier this summer hosting partners
I knew I hadn't dreamed up the whole thing...
:-)
- Yves -
-Original Message-
From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 2, 2003 1:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we're working with several hosting co
ICQ #117650823
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 2, 2003 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact
-Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
>
>
> I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
> th
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that
regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to
the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of
BlueDragon could be used b
On Tuesday 02 Sep 2003 16:28 pm, John Wilker wrote:
> I'm sure PHP
> is growing in the enterprise but I think it still has a while before it
> overtakes CF in mid/large company's and especially intranets, where I also
Not if they keep breaking random bits of the code with their point releases it
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Brodie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:05 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I agree with Stacy on this point. Over the last 3 mont
Do such places exist?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us
would move our site(s) to a
-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Su
Sunday, August 31, 2003 10:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us? )
> Basically, it states that PHP - normally thought of as a LAMP product
> - is growing very quickly on Windows, and - if the current rate keeps
> up - will ov
I agree with Stacy on this point. Over the last 3 months in my experiance, I've seen
more of a willingness to go with a CF solution. Before that, there was very little
activity.
But the coversation has not been one about technology, rather its about
practicalities. Quite a few have been burned
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> > If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive
it
> >
> I do a lot of work with the federal government. In fact, I
> was on a team that developed a Flash/CF app that has been
> deployed globally throughout the Airforce, Army, DOT, DOE,
> and DOJ, and many other Gov. agencies. I have worked in the
> classisfied and non-classisfied areas back in Wa
Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:56 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is
> destined for an Intranet since by definition the application needs to
; Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
> Webapper Services LLC
> Web Site http://www.webapper.com
> Blog http://www.webapper.net
>
> Webapper
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
Mike Brunt
Webapper Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't need to st
.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia)
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
> Yahoo IM : morpheus
>
> "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMA
03 8:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
>
> Well, since I can't afford anything MM produces legally, I'm
> going to have to get BlueDragon next time I get paid. MM
> just lost
> just to jump in and stir the pot ;) one of the things that I like most
> about the latest versions of CF is that you can deploy a war file to a
> J2EE platform and completely skip the need for a CF license for the
> client. Now that there are even instructions kicking around on how to
> get this
By that logic, you must be running CFMX on top of WebSphere, running on
top of an S/390.
In the J2EE world there are many vendors all with different offerings
and different prices. Certainly you wouldn't avoid using JRun just
because it is much cheaper than WebSphere or WebLogic. We CFML
devel
kinda like buying a kia:)
it tries to be the real thing but its not, will always be a step behind.
i dont even do serious programming but no thanks, i'll take the real deal.
you guys are making $100 + an hour, you can fit it in.
Its up too you to show the client where it saves them money so they d
just to jump in and stir the pot ;) one of the things that I like most
about the latest versions of CF is that you can deploy a war file to a
J2EE platform and completely skip the need for a CF license for the
client. Now that there are even instructions kicking around on how to
get this going wit
> If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it
> may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive
> (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost
> analysis).
>
I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g.
e-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:56 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
>
> Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is
> destined for an Intranet since by definition
nd Regards - Mike Brunt
> Webapper Services LLC
> Web Site http://www.webapper.com
> Blog http://www.webapper.net
>
> Webapper
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
>
D]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:49 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote:
> Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that?
The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .ne
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote:
> Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that?
The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .net compiler.
--
Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.)
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email:
Agreed, but I think they've yet to deliver on some key functionality to
entice larger enterprises.
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 8:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - What
> I'd bet that with cfmx 7 they're going to really gear it for
> medium to large biz. Support for managing CF in clusters, auto
> deployment etc...maybe a bigger price tag. Higher revenue with
> perhaps slightly smaller market in terms of install base.
I think that's already what Macromedia (an
Sunday, August 31, 2003, 7:11:51 PM, you wrote:
JM> These points may be 100% true, but neither addresses the simple observation
JM> that PHP usage will soon eclipse that of CF. And what the implications of this
JM> will be for CF.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said CF was dead...
--
-
From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 7:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new
for us? )
Doug White wrote:
> One thing has not changed as far as PHP vs. CF
>
> 1. CF and especially CFMX is M
of development vrs
other enterprise tool sets.
Jim Davis
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 7:12 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new
for
> us? )
>
> Dou
Doug White wrote:
> One thing has not changed as far as PHP vs. CF
>
> 1. CF and especially CFMX is MUCH faster than PHP
>
> Additionally, while PHP is open source, and CF is not - when one considers
the
> total cost of development, CF will come out ahead. Faster development time,
> reusable cod
inal Message -
>From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:08 PM
>Subject: Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
>
>
>| > Basically, it states
L PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
| > Basically, it states that PHP - normally thought of as a LAMP product
| > - is growing very quickly on Windows, and - if the current rate keeps
| > up
> Basically, it states that PHP - normally thought of as a LAMP product
> - is growing very quickly on Windows, and - if the current rate keeps
> up - will overtake CF as the second most popular Windows scripting
> language (behind ASP, of course) sometime next year.
>
> While Netcraft doesn't t
The most recent Netcraft newsletter is out, with http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/29/php_growing_surprisingly_strongly_on_windows.html";>an
item that is pertinent to this thread.
Basically, it states that PHP - normally thought of as a LAMP product - is growing
very quickly on Windows,
The most recent Netcraft newsletter is out, with http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/29/php_growing_surprisingly_strongly_on_windows.html";>an
item that is pertinent to this thread.
Basically, it states that PHP - normally thought of as a LAMP product - is growing
very quickly on Windows,
an't
> use DW and photoshop. I know I could use wine but it's not the same to me.
>
> Ben
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joshua Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 2
Message-
> From: Earl, George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 5:31 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us?
> )
>
> > From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> CF in Federal Government
> Let's see.
>
> ... snipped ...
>
> Going on a search of google: .cfm site:.gov returns 4,280,000 results
> including
>
> (... lists 26 federal agencies, departments and organizations, and
senators and
> congress people, etc.
I hope my last response cleared up what I was trying to say. If not,
please email me off list and I'd be happy clarify my points more
without boring the list.
-Matt
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 12:34 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why you are suggesting t
Matt Liotta wrote:
> I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all
> management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through
> an HTTP interface.
I am not suggesting that that is your position. I am quoting you
on your position that "(..) networking equipment (
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all
management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through
an HTTP interface. My point in case it wasn't clear is most networking
equipment now includes a web interface for management purposes. I made
this only to furth
1 - 100 of 291 matches
Mail list logo