RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I offered a solution doing just that in an article in the Feb 2002 CFDJ called "Unlocking Restricted Use of CFFILE, CFCONTENT, and More", available at http://www.sys-con.com/coldfusion/article.cfm?id=404. It addresses how to solve this problem in CF 5. Before anyone sees that title and think I'm suggesting how to circumvent security, please read the article. I'm showing how (as is suggested in the notes below) one could implement a way to get around simple CFFILE security in a controlled way in conjunction with the CF Admin. It's just a very underrated CF5 feature (the "unsecured tags directory") that I point out. And for the later notes pointing up Sandbox Security and the potential to solve this problem that way, I'll add as well that I wrote a couple of articles on the subject late last year, at: ColdFusion Security, Part One: Understanding Sandbox/Resource Security http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/security/articles/sandbox_01.html ColdFusion Security, Part Two: Sandbox/Resource Basics http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/security/articles/sandbox_02.html /charlie > -Original Message- > 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 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 which is > a wrapper round > cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the > path/filename > arguments or something. > > -- > Tom C > "Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave > to live there and > enjoy the freedoms" > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
No -Matt On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 06:24 AM, Dan O'Keefe wrote: > Matt, > > Is it possible the hosting company can remove that object from the File > class? > > Dan > === Previous Message Below === > > > -Original 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 > understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of > shear frustration. > > -Matt > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt, Is it possible the hosting company can remove that object from the File class? Dan === Previous Message Below === -Original 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 understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of shear frustration. -Matt ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 Security into CF MX Standard Edition too. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Ummm Maybe I'm confused... but doesn't sandboxing cover the requirements adressed here? IE I'm pretty damn sure you can't do anything particularly nasty with CFFILE or CFDIRECTORY on my shared boxes... because my sandboxes are locked down tight. Admittedly? if you're dealing with non enterprise licences you don't have sandboxes... but its a bit unrealistic to ask MM to give you one of the primary commercial incentives to upgrade with the cutdown distribution. -Original Message- From: Miller, Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 5 September 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 ask as a group with a unified voice, the request will never work its way to the 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 a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
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 ask as a group with a unified voice, the request will never work its way to the 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 a cf_file which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 they should do, is provide a cf_file which is a wrapper round > cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename > arguments or something. What they should do is not disable cffile in the first place, but secure it. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 which is a wrapper round cffile, but appends your hosted directory path to all the path/filename arguments or something. -- Tom C "Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live there and enjoy the freedoms" ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> 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 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 cffile ... ? -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> 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 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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/o layer inside. -- Tom C "Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live there and enjoy the freedoms" ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
[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 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
lol by all means please humor me btw~ please read all my message as well i cant read it if it aint there > 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. > > -Matt > > On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 03:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Matt are you my brother? >> not only do you look like me but you have my temper as well, lol >> >> i read the mail as you put it >> "Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?" >> >> nothing in that to me suggested >> "disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER." >> >> although I could have missed a few threads as I seem to get many >> threads >> way after the fact if at all. >> sometimes I get the answers before the ?'s, kinda odd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not >>> suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or >>> cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory >>> DOES >>> NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 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:) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >>>>>> >>>>>> == >>>>>> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >>>>>> For hosting solutions http://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: >>>>>> 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]> >>>>>> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >>>>>> | >>>>>> | >>>>>> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >>>>>> clustering/load >>>>>> | balancing etc.). >>>>>> | >>>>>> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >>>>>> connections and >>>>>> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >>>>>> from using >>>>>> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough >>>>>> to make me >>>>>> | look elsewhere. >>>>>> | >>>>>> | >>>>>> | -Original Message- >>>>>> | From: Bryan 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&#
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 understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of shear frustration. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 03:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt are you my brother? > not only do you look like me but you have my temper as well, lol > > i read the mail as you put it > "Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?" > > nothing in that to me suggested > "disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER." > > although I could have missed a few threads as I seem to get many > threads > way after the fact if at all. > sometimes I get the answers before the ?'s, kinda odd > > > > > > > > > > >> Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not >> suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or >> cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory >> DOES >> NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 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:) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >>>>> >>>>> == >>>>> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >>>>> For hosting solutions http://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: >>>>> 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]> >>>>> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >>>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >>>>> clustering/load >>>>> | balancing etc.). >>>>> | >>>>> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >>>>> connections and >>>>> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >>>>> from using >>>>> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >>>>> make me >>>>> | look elsewhere. >>>>> | >>>>> | >>>>> | -Original Message- >>>>> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >>>>> | >>>>> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >>>>> | >>>>> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why >>>>> should >>>>> they >>>>> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load >>&g
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 else on the same server. http://tech.badpen.com/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=4 http://tech.badpen.com/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=3 http://www.rewindlife.com/archives/46.cfm CFMX4J2EE can protect against this using separate CF instances, but that's not usually offered by hosts. Sam -- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting -- ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Matt are you my brother? not only do you look like me but you have my temper as well, lol i read the mail as you put it "Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?" nothing in that to me suggested "disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER." although I could have missed a few threads as I seem to get many threads way after the fact if at all. sometimes I get the answers before the ?'s, kinda odd > Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not > suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or > cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES > NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. > > -Matt > > On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 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:) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >>>> >>>> == >>>> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >>>> For hosting solutions http://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: >>>> 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]> >>>> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >>>> | >>>> | >>>> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >>>> clustering/load >>>> | balancing etc.). >>>> | >>>> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >>>> connections and >>>> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >>>> from using >>>> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >>>> make me >>>> | look elsewhere. >>>> | >>>> | >>>> | -Original Message- >>>> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >>>> | >>>> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >>>> | >>>> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why >>>> should >>>> they >>>> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load >>>> balancing etc.). >>>> | >>>> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of >>>> the | softwarethat's how. >>>> | >>>> | Cheers >>>> | >>>> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >>>> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >>>> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >>>> | t. 250.920.8830 >>>> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> | >>>> | - >>>> | Macromedia Associate Partner >>>> | www.macromedia.com >>>> | - >>>
java.io.File example (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Below is an example of using java.io.File off the top of my head.
dir = CreateObject("java", "some directory path here");
files = dir.list();
for(itr = 1; itr lte ArrayLen(files); itr = itr + 1)
WriteOutput(files[itr] & "");
The above will list all the file names in a provided directory.
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:45 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
> I don't think there is CFMX specific documentation anywhere besides
> random emails on the subject. However, you can find the API for
> java.io.File at
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/docs/api/java/io/File.html.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:33 PM, Fetter, Brad wrote:
>
>> 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 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway
>>>
>>> ==
>>> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
>>> For hosting solutions http://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:
>>> 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]>
>>> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e.
>>> clustering/load
>>> | balancing etc.).
>>> |
>>> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database
>>> connections and
>>> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server
>>> from using
>>> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to
>>> make me
>>> | look elsewhere.
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | -Original Message-
>>> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand).
>>> |
>>> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included".
>>> |
>>> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why
>>> should
>>> they
>>> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing
>>> etc.).
>>> |
>>> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the
>>> | softwarethat's how.
>>> |
>>> | Cheers
>>> |
>>> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
>>> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development
>>> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc.
>>> | t. 250.920.8830
>>> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> |
>>> | -
>>> | Macromedia Associate Partner
>>> | www.macromedia.com
>>> | -
>>> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
>>> | Founder & Director
>>> | www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
>>> | - Original Message -
>>> | From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>&
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is a simple java.io.filereader example in the advanced book from Forta... -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, September 3, 2003, 2:33:50 PM, you wrote: FB> Matt, FB> Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX? FB> Thanks, FB> -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> -Matt FB> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: >> Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >> >> == >> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >> For hosting solutions http://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: >> 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]> >> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >> | >> | >> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >> clustering/load >> | balancing etc.). >> | >> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >> connections and >> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >> from using >> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >> make me >> | look elsewhere. >> | >> | >> | -Original Message- >> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >> | >> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >> | >> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should >> they >> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing >> etc.). >> | >> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the >> | softwarethat's how. >> | >> | Cheers >> | >> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >> | t. 250.920.8830 >> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | >> | - >> | Macromedia Associate Partner >> | www.macromedia.com >> | - >> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group >> | 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 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 their plans. >> | > >> | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not >> | Enterprise, >> | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. >> | > >> | > Ryan >> | > >> | > -Original Message- >> | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM >> |
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
man u aint alone, its like tiger woods and his 1 iron. only 2 people can hit a 1 iron, tiger woods and god. learning and using java and cf developers is quite the leap, most (if not a very high percentage) probably don't. tony weeg sr. web applications architect navtrak, inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 java & maybe dont have time to learn it. a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) > 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >> >> == >> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >> For hosting solutions http://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: >> 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]> >> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >> | >> | >> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >> clustering/load >> | balancing etc.). >> | >> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >> connections and >> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >> from using >> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >> make me >> | look elsewhere. >> | >> | >> | -Original Message- >> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >> | >> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >> | >> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why >> | should >> they >> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing >> etc.). >> | >> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the >> | softwarethat's how. >> | >> | Cheers >> | >> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >> | t. 250.920.8830 >> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | >> | - >> | Macromedia Associate Partner >> | www.macromedia.com >> | - >> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group >> | 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 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 their plans. >> | > >> | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not >> | > | >> Enterprise, >> | > don't walk, but run away as fast as
shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 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:) > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >>> >>> == >>> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >>> For hosting solutions http://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: >>> 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]> >>> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >>> | >>> | >>> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >>> clustering/load >>> | balancing etc.). >>> | >>> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >>> connections and >>> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >>> from using >>> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >>> make me >>> | look elsewhere. >>> | >>> | >>> | -Original Message- >>> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >>> | >>> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >>> | >>> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why >>> should >>> they >>> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing >>> etc.). >>> | >>> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the >>> | softwarethat's how. >>> | >>> | Cheers >>> | >>> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >>> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >>> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >>> | t. 250.920.8830 >>> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> | >>> | - >>> | Macromedia Associate Partner >>> | www.macromedia.com >>> | - >>> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group >>> | 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 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Sure, but we are talking about security of shared hosting here even if the subject of the email is wrong. If you are attempting to exploit a server and only know CFML; you're kinda fucked! -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:36 PM, John Wilker wrote: > 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 Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: > >> Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >> >> == >> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >> For hosting solutions http://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: >> 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]> >> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >> | >> | >> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >> clustering/load >> | balancing etc.). >> | >> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >> connections and >> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >> from using >> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >> make me >> | look elsewhere. >> | >> | >> | -Original Message- >> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >> | >> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >> | >> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should >> they >> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing >> etc.). >> | >> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the >> | softwarethat's how. >> | >> | Cheers >> | >> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >> | t. 250.920.8830 >> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | >> | - >> | Macromedia Associate Partner >> | www.macromedia.com >> | - >> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group >> | 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 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 their plans. >> | > >> | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not >> | Enterprise, >> | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. >> | > >> | > Ryan >> | > >> | > -Original Message- >> | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM &g
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't think there is CFMX specific documentation anywhere besides random emails on the subject. However, you can find the API for java.io.File at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/docs/api/java/io/File.html. -Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:33 PM, Fetter, Brad wrote: > 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 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >> >> == >> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >> For hosting solutions http://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: >> 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]> >> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >> | >> | >> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >> clustering/load >> | balancing etc.). >> | >> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >> connections and >> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >> from using >> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >> make me >> | look elsewhere. >> | >> | >> | -Original Message- >> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >> | >> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >> | >> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should >> they >> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing >> etc.). >> | >> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the >> | softwarethat's how. >> | >> | Cheers >> | >> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >> | t. 250.920.8830 >> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | >> | - >> | Macromedia Associate Partner >> | www.macromedia.com >> | - >> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group >> | 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 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 their plans. >> | > >> | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not >> | Enterprise, >> | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. >> | > >> | > Ryan >> | > >> | > -Original Me
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Matt, If you do not mind me asking are there any examples of CFMX calling Java directly. I am totally new to Java, just started looking into it and I am just looking for very basic examples that I could tear part to see how it works. Thanks Mario -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway > > == > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! > For hosting solutions http://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: > 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]> > To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt > | > | > | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. > clustering/load > | balancing etc.). > | > | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database > connections and > | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server > from using > | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to > make me > | look elsewhere. > | > | > | -Original Message- > | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). > | > | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". > | > | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should > they > | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing > etc.). > | > | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the > | softwarethat's how. > | > | Cheers > | > | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > | t. 250.920.8830 > | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | - > | Macromedia Associate Partner > | www.macromedia.com > | ------------- > | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > | 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 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 their plans. > | > > | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not > | Enterprise, > | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > | > > | > Ryan > | > > | > -Original Message- > | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > | > To: CF-Talk > | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > | > > | > Hey All, > | > > | > Just thought I'd chime in here. > | > > | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > | > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF > is > | > starting > | to > | > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > | > > | > www.uniserve.
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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:) > 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >> >> == >> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >> For hosting solutions http://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: >> 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]> >> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >> | >> | >> | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. >> clustering/load >> | balancing etc.). >> | >> | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database >> connections and >> | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server >> from using >> | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to >> make me >> | look elsewhere. >> | >> | >> | -Original Message- >> | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). >> | >> | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". >> | >> | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should >> they >> | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing >> etc.). >> | >> | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the >> | softwarethat's how. >> | >> | Cheers >> | >> | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >> | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >> | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >> | t. 250.920.8830 >> | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> | >> | - >> | Macromedia Associate Partner >> | www.macromedia.com >> | - >> | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group >> | 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 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 their plans. >> | > >> | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | >> Enterprise, >> | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. >> | > >> | > Ryan >> | > >> | > -Original Message- >> | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM >> | > To: CF-Talk >> | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? >> | > >> | > >> | > Hey All, >> | > >> | > Just thought I'd chime in here. >> | > >> | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway > > == > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! > For hosting solutions http://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: > 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]> > To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt > | > | > | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. > clustering/load > | balancing etc.). > | > | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database > connections and > | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server > from using > | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to > make me > | look elsewhere. > | > | > | -Original Message- > | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). > | > | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". > | > | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should > they > | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing > etc.). > | > | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the > | softwarethat's how. > | > | Cheers > | > | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > | t. 250.920.8830 > | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | - > | Macromedia Associate Partner > | www.macromedia.com > | ------------- > | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > | 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 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 their plans. > | > > | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not > | Enterprise, > | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > | > > | > Ryan > | > > | > -Original Message- > | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > | > To: CF-Talk > | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > | > > | > Hey All, > | > > | > Just thought I'd chime in here. > | > > | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > | > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF > is > | > starting > | to > | > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > | > > | > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > | > > | > NT Hosting with SQL Ser
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: > Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway > > == > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! > For hosting solutions http://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: > 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]> > To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt > | > | > | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. > clustering/load > | balancing etc.). > | > | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database > connections and > | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server > from using > | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to > make me > | look elsewhere. > | > | > | -Original Message- > | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). > | > | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". > | > | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should > they > | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing > etc.). > | > | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the > | softwarethat's how. > | > | Cheers > | > | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > | t. 250.920.8830 > | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | - > | Macromedia Associate Partner > | www.macromedia.com > | ------------- > | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > | 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 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 their plans. > | > > | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not > | Enterprise, > | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > | > > | > Ryan > | > > | > -Original Message- > | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > | > To: CF-Talk > | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > | > > | > Hey All, > | > > | > Just thought I'd chime in here. > | > > | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may > | > bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, > | > but CF > is > | > starting > | to > | > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > | > > | > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > | > > | > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment > for > | > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the compan
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 disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway > > == > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! > For hosting solutions http://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: > 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]> > To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt > | > | > | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. > clustering/load > | balancing etc.). > | > | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database > connections and > | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server > from using > | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to > make me > | look elsewhere. > | > | > | -Original Message- > | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). > | > | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". > | > | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should > they > | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing > etc.). > | > | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the > | softwarethat's how. > | > | Cheers > | > | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > | t. 250.920.8830 > | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | - > | Macromedia Associate Partner > | www.macromedia.com > | ------------- > | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > | 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 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 their plans. > | > > | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not > | Enterprise, > | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > | > > | > Ryan > | > > | > -Original Message- > | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > | > To: CF-Talk > | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > | > > | > > | > Hey All, > | > > | > Just thought I'd chime in here. > | > > | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > | > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF > is > | > starting > | to > | > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > | > > | > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > | > > | > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment > for > | > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they > | > recently > | acquired > | > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got > better > | after > | > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I don't see that as a vulnerability in my case - your mileage may vary.
==
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http://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: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
==
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[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 things way before anybody at
the hosting company would even have a clue about what's going on.
|
| - Original Message -
| From: Doug White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| 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 do
| > have Terms of Service and a legitimate user will comply willingly.
| >
| > ==
| > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
| > For hosting solutions http://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:
| > http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf==
| > If 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 2004 - Whats
| > new for us? )
| >
| >
| > | 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();
| > | clazz = clazz.forName("a.badThing");
| > | badThing = clazz.newInstance();
| > |
| > |
| > | -Matt
| > |
| > | On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote:
| > |
| > | > I know this has been covered before but has there been any
| > solutions to
| > | > using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security
| > hazard?| >
| > | > Cheers
| > | >
| > | > -Original Message-
| > | > From: Ryan Kime [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
| > they use. I
| > | > see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's
| > | > great
| > | > that prices are coming down.
| > | >
| > | > There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new
| > customer| > and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I
| > remember Dell got into
| > | > hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long
| > that| > lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it
| > makes me
| > | > wonder
| > | > about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that
| > level of
| > | > price vs. features without cutting corners.
| > | >
| > | > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
| > | > To: CF-Talk
| > | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >> "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"
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://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: 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]> To: "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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt | | | >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load | balancing etc.). | | H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and | your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using | cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me | look elsewhere. | | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). | | I used the word "free".they use the word "included". | | Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they | use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). | | These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the | softwarethat's how. | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | 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 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 their plans. | > | > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not | Enterprise, | > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | > | > Ryan | > | > -Original Message- | > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | > To: CF-Talk | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | > | > | > Hey All, | > | > Just thought I'd chime in here. | > | > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring | > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is | > starting | to | > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | > | > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | > | > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for | > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they | > recently | acquired | > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better | after | > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any | monthly | > cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | > | > So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is | already | > happening here ;-) | > | > Cheers | > | > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development | > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | > t. 250.920.8830 | > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > | > - | > Macromedia Associate Partner | > www.macromedia.com | > - | > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | > Founder & Director | > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com | > - Original Message - | > From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 directories, configuring CF MX that way is a bit problematic. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
[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. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hey Ryan, Fair enough to a certain degreethat said...I'm about 99.9% sure they use Enterprise ;-) Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com - Original Message - From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "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: > > http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt > > > >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load > balancing etc.). > > H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and > your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using > cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me > look elsewhere. > > > -Original Message- > From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). > > I used the word "free".they use the word "included". > > Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they > use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). > > These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the > softwarethat's how. > > Cheers > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > t. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > Macromedia Associate Partner > www.macromedia.com > ----- > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > 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 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 their plans. > > > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not > Enterprise, > > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > > > > Ryan > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > > Hey All, > > > > Just thought I'd chime in here. > > > > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is > > starting > to > > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > > > > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > > > > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for > > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they > > recently > acquired > > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better > after > > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any > monthly > > cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! > > > > So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is > already > > happening here ;-) > > > > Cheers > > > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > > t. 250.920.8830 > > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 config file? Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
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 things way before anybody at the hosting
company would even have a clue about what's going on.
- Original Message -
From: Doug White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 do
> have Terms of Service and a legitimate user will comply willingly.
>
> ==
> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
> For hosting solutions http://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:
> http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf==
> If 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 2004 - Whats
> new for us? )
>
>
> | 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();
> | clazz = clazz.forName("a.badThing");
> | badThing = clazz.newInstance();
> |
> |
> | -Matt
> |
> | On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote:
> |
> | > I know this has been covered before but has there been any
> solutions to
> | > using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security
> hazard?| >
> | > Cheers
> | >
> | > -Original Message-
> | > From: Ryan Kime [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
> they use. I
> | > see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's
> | > great
> | > that prices are coming down.
> | >
> | > There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new
> customer| > and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I
> remember Dell got into
> | > hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long
> that| > lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it
> makes me
> | > wonder
> | > about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that
> level of
> | > price vs. features without cutting corners.
> | >
> | > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
> | > To: CF-Talk
> | > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> | >
> | >
> | >> "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 their plans.
> | >>
> | >> Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not
> | > Enterprise,
> | >> don't walk, but run away as fast as you can.
> | >
> | > Other companies offer low prices too:
> | >
> | > http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm
> | >
> | > The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1
> Enterprise| > running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down,
> not as fast as a
> | > few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever
> | >
> | >
> | > Massimo Foti
> | > Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
> | > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> | > http://www.massimocorner.com/
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
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
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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'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();
>> clazz = clazz.forName("a.badThing");
>> badThing = clazz.newInstance();
>>
>
> But that stills run in the Sandbox, because CF MX leverages the
> security built in to Java. So that means that all restrictions on
> the filesystem and ports still apply.
> What I am wondering is whether you can use this mechanism to
> either invoke a COM object or to access the runtime service or
> the security service. And if you can invoke COM objects, whether
> you still can after all JIntegra files have been removed.
>
> Jochem
>
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
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
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably immediately
close your account upon the appearance of code such as that - All of them do
have Terms of Service and a legitimate user will comply willingly.
==
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http://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: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
==
If 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 2004 - Whats new for us? )
| 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();
| clazz = clazz.forName("a.badThing");
| badThing = clazz.newInstance();
|
|
| -Matt
|
| On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote:
|
| > I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to
| > using CFObject in a shared host without creating 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 they use. I
| > see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's
| > great
| > that prices are coming down.
| >
| > There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer
| > and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into
| > hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that
| > lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me
| > wonder
| > about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of
| > price vs. features without cutting corners.
| >
| > 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 new for us?
| >
| >
| >> "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 their plans.
| >>
| >> Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not
| > Enterprise,
| >> don't walk, but run away as fast as you can.
| >
| > Other companies offer low prices too:
| >
| > http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm
| >
| > The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise
| > running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a
| > few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever
| >
| >
| > Massimo Foti
| > Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
| > Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
| > http://www.massimocorner.com/
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
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
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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();
> clazz = clazz.forName("a.badThing");
> badThing = clazz.newInstance();
>
But that stills run in the Sandbox, because CF MX leverages the
security built in to Java. So that means that all restrictions on
the filesystem and ports still apply.
What I am wondering is whether you can use this mechanism to
either invoke a COM object or to access the runtime service or
the security service. And if you can invoke COM objects, whether
you still can after all JIntegra files have been removed.
Jochem
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
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
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.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). H...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me look elsewhere. -Original Message- From: Bryan 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 count how many issues on one hand). I used the word "free".they use the word "included". Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the softwarethat's how. Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group 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 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 their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > > Ryan > > -Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > Hey All, > > Just thought I'd chime in here. > > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is > starting to > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they > recently acquired > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly > cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! > > So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already > happening here ;-) > > Cheers > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > t. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > Macromedia Associate Partner > www.macromedia.com > - > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > Founder & Director > www.cfug-vancouverisland.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 happy where I > > am (CrystalTech). > > > > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting > > prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so > > I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. > > > > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also > > makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF > > application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either > > J2EE or, soon, .NET). > > > > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue > > Dragon may expand it greatly. > > > >
Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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();
clazz = clazz.forName("a.badThing");
badThing = clazz.newInstance();
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Oliver Cookson wrote:
> I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to
> using CFObject in a shared host without creating 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 they use. I
> see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's
> great
> that prices are coming down.
>
> There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer
> and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into
> hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that
> lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me
> wonder
> about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of
> price vs. features without cutting corners.
>
> 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 new for us?
>
>
>> "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 their plans.
>>
>> Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not
> Enterprise,
>> don't walk, but run away as fast as you can.
>
> Other companies offer low prices too:
>
> http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm
>
> The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise
> running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a
> few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever
>
>
> Massimo Foti
> Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer
> Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> http://www.massimocorner.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Actually PRO standard supports web site quite well, unless you want separate instantiations for each site. But Blue Dragon is coming right along, and I expect to see its adoption for smaller sites start spreading. On the other hand, from a server standpoint, there are costs other than software licensing. Deployment and connectivity are no small items to consider, In our operation, we prefer not to load up a shared server with tons and tons of web sites. but prefer to spread them over several servers, which will enhance performance for each hosted site. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://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: 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]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | "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 their plans. | | Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, | don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. | | Ryan | | -Original Message- | From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? | | | Hey All, | | Just thought I'd chime in here. | | I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down | hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to | be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. | | www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). | | NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about | $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired | (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after | the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly | cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! | | So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already | happening here ;-) | | Cheers | | Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. | VP & Director of E-Commerce Development | Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. | t. 250.920.8830 | e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | - | Macromedia Associate Partner | www.macromedia.com | - | Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group | Founder & Director | www.cfug-vancouverisland.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 happy where I | > am (CrystalTech). | > | > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting | > prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I | > would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. | > | > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also | > makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF | > application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either | > J2EE or, soon, .NET). | > | > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue | > Dragon may expand 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 | > us | > > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM | > > ColdFusion? | > > | > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt | > > Webapper Services LLC | > > Web Site http://www.webapper.com | > > Blog http://www.webapper.net | > > | > > Webapper | > > | > > -Original Message- | > > 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? | > >
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Turning off cfobject doesn't really protect the server, at least with CFMX. You can create Java class instances using standard CFML without using cfobject/createobject (it's just a little more work). Sam -- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: 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 2004 - Whats new for > us? ) > > > I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to > using CFObject in a shared host without creating a security hazard? > > Cheers ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
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 count how many issues on one hand). I used the word "free".they use the word "included". Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the softwarethat's how. Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group 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 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 their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > > Ryan > > -----Original Message- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > Hey All, > > Just thought I'd chime in here. > > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down > hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about > $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly > cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! > > So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already > happening here ;-) > > Cheers > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > t. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > Macromedia Associate Partner > www.macromedia.com > --------------------- > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > Founder & Director > www.cfug-vancouverisland.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 happy where I > > am (CrystalTech). > > > > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting > > prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I > > would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. > > > > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also > > makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF > > application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either > > J2EE or, soon, .NET). > > > > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue > > Dragon may expand 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 > > us > > > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM > > > ColdFusion? > > > > > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > > Webapper Services LLC > > > Web Site http://www.webapper.com > > > Blog http://www.webapper.net > > > > > > Webapper > > > > > > --
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I'm the wrong person to give you technical specs on that. Stephenie Hamilton set all that up for us way back when we first started. We don't have it enabled for just anyone though. It has to be requested and we more or less interview the person running the site and check out their code as well. That way if there are problems, we know who to go to. If we feel funny about them, we deny it. In 3 years though, we have never had an issue or turned anyone down for this. -Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:50 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 protect you from accidents with COM objects like the FSO? Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
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 protect you from accidents with COM objects like the FSO? Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox security to prevent any "accidents" ;-) Dan Phillips www.CFXHosting.com 1-866-239-4678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you want complete ColdFusion Administrator access? RDS? Terminal Server?- CFX-Advanced 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 there been any solutions to using CFObject in a shared host without creating 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 they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. 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 new for us? > "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 their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I know this has been covered before but has there been any solutions to using CFObject in a shared host without creating 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 they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. 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 new for us? > "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 their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's great that prices are coming down. There's a threshold where you start to lose money on every new customer and I'm sure it's different for everyone. But I remember Dell got into hosting and were offering $16.95 plans with CF. Guess how long that lasted? About a year. And they are a huge company, so it makes me wonder about the smaller hosts and their ability to sustain at that level of price vs. features without cutting corners. 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 new for us? > "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 their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> "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 their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Other companies offer low prices too: http://www.crystaltech.com/plan2.htm The quality is excellent, with SQL Server 2000 and CF 6.1 Enterprise running on Win 2003. Hosting prices keep going down, not as fast as a few years ago, but they are more affordable than ever Massimo Foti Certified Dreamweaver MX Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer http://www.massimocorner.com/ ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
"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 their plans. Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. Ryan -Original Message- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.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 happy where I > am (CrystalTech). > > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting > prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I > would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. > > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also > makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF > application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either > J2EE or, soon, .NET). > > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue > Dragon may expand 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 > us > > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM > > ColdFusion? > > > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > Webapper Services LLC > > Web Site http://www.webapper.com > > Blog http://www.webapper.net > > > > Webapper > > > > -Original Message- > > 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 > > > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > > > 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. > > CF > > > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > > > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that > regard. > > > > It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in > > CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to > > maintenance and general infrastructure costs. > > > > Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software > > can > be > > (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource > > map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. > > > > All that being s
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Hey All, Just thought I'd chime in here. I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is starting to be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they recently acquired (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.that move is already happening here ;-) Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com - Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.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 happy where I am > (CrystalTech). > > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices > down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would > really like to see it offered by a few hosts. > > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes > excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application > for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, > .NET). > > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue > Dragon may expand 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 > us > > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM > > ColdFusion? > > > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > Webapper Services LLC > > Web Site http://www.webapper.com > > Blog http://www.webapper.net > > > > Webapper > > > > -Original Message- > > 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 > > > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > > > 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. > > CF > > > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > > > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that > regard. > > > > It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in > > CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance > > and general infrastructure costs. > > > > Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can > be > > (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource > > map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. > > > > All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software > costs > > are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but > > often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). > > > > > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" > hosts > > for > > > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional > > > > Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for > > example, > > > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an > > Exchange > > > > server). > > > > > >
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). However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either J2EE or, soon, .NET). Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue Dragon may expand 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 us > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM > ColdFusion? > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > Webapper Services LLC > Web Site http://www.webapper.com > Blog http://www.webapper.net > > Webapper > > -Original Message- > 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 > > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > 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. > CF > > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. > > It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in > CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance > and general infrastructure costs. > > Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be > (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource > map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. > > All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs > are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but > often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). > > > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts > for > > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional > > > Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for > example, > > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an > Exchange > > > server). > > > > > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT > > resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. > > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single > point > > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving > > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific > > consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by > a > > 3rd party. > > All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to > spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be > sacrificing some things. A full "bullet-proof" system will always cost > more. > > > > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six > > > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that > each > > > of these applications only has to save two hours of development time > > > due > > > to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. > > > > > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour > > per application. > > True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that > software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times > I've heard "we can't afford CF" only to watch a company spends thousands > more pursuing an untried "free" solution. > > The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A > company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use > them. > But a company looking for a solut
Re: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
In one of Forta's blog entries (http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=e&entry=855) he mentions that shared hosting companies could provide an instance of CFMX for each customer avoiding many of the problems associated with shared hosting. He goes on to state in a comment that each instance of CFMX uses 30MB of memory. Based on my understanding of hosting economics, 30MB per customer wouldn't allow a hosting company to put enough people on the same box to charge the same price as existing shared hosting. Is it possible to deploy BlueDragon is a similar configuration and what kind of memory usage does it have for each instance? -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:38 PM, Vince Bonfanti wrote: > Yes, we're working with several hosting companies to offer BlueDragon > support. Yes, they'll be able to use the free version of BlueDragon to > offer > dramatically lower costs to their customers. Stay tuned... > > Vince Bonfanti > New Atlanta Communications, LLC > http://www.newatlanta.com > >> -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 >> 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 by hosting companies. >> >> Matt Liotta >> President & CEO >> Montara Software, Inc. >> http://www.MontaraSoftware.com >> (888) 408-0900 x901 >> > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we've chosen to delay those announcements, and the releases of BlueDragon 3.1 and BlueDragon.NET (both of which were originally planned for this summer) for reasons that will become clear very soon (it's a good thing). Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.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 were to > be announced, but I do not remember seeing anything about them > > I believe I heard that on the BD list some time ago. > > Yves Arsenault > Carrefour Infotech > 5, Acadian Dr. > Charlottetown, PEI > C1C 1M2 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (902)368-1895 ext.242 > 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 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 by > hosting companies. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.MontaraSoftware.com > (888) 408-0900 x901 > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
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 companies to offer BlueDragon support. Yes, they'll be able to use the free version of BlueDragon to offer dramatically lower costs to their customers. Stay tuned... Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com > -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 > 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 by hosting companies. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.MontaraSoftware.com > (888) 408-0900 x901 > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I thought that earlier this summer hosting partners were to be announced, but I do not remember seeing anything about them I believe I heard that on the BD list some time ago. Yves Arsenault Carrefour Infotech 5, Acadian Dr. Charlottetown, PEI C1C 1M2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (902)368-1895 ext.242 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 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 by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we're working with several hosting companies to offer BlueDragon support. Yes, they'll be able to use the free version of BlueDragon to offer dramatically lower costs to their customers. Stay tuned... Vince Bonfanti New Atlanta Communications, LLC http://www.newatlanta.com > -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 > 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 by hosting companies. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.MontaraSoftware.com > (888) 408-0900 x901 > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
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, 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 by hosting companies. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 wont. -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Good points and here are more. I just got back from Fusebox 2003 in Las Vegas; in terms of new versions-items this was the best Fusebox conference since Fusebox was launched. Fusebox 4.0 and Mach II are both very powerful frameworks. Fusebox 4.0 is for those staying with the procedural methodology of classic CF applications. Mach II along with CFMX 6.1 really opens us up to the power of CFC's. I encourage all to talk a look. http://www.fusebox.org/ for Fusebox 4.0 http://www.mach-ii.com for Mach II Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com 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 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 with never-ending development projects using the latest technologies such as pure J2EE and .net. When people learn they can have the the engine (and potentally the functionality if needed) a Hummer at the cost of a Honda Civic, all of the sudden people begin to listen. They need to check the J2EE or .net box. What people want is software developed in a reasonable time that works and can fix without having to break the bank. It turns out people are shying away from complex hard to manage and maintain solutions. Jeremy Brodie Intelix an Edgewater Technology Solutions Company web: http://www.edgewater.com phone:(703) 815-2500 nasdaq symbol: EDGE >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. > >Just a guess > >Stace ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- 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 > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > 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. CF > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional > > Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange > > server). > > > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT > resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific > consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a > 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full "bullet-proof" system will always cost more. > > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six > > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each > > of these applications only has to save two hours of development time > > due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. > > > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour > per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard "we can't afford CF" only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried "free" solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with R&D/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can "pick up" something easily. My advice to small business is always stick with what you know and always pay extra for gurus. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
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 hosting company using BD instead of MM ColdFusion? Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- 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 > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > 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. CF > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional > > Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange > > server). > > > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT > resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific > consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a > 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full "bullet-proof" system will always cost more. > > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six > > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each > > of these applications only has to save two hours of development time > > due > > to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. > > > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour > per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard "we can't afford CF" only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried "free" solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with R&D/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can "pick up" something easily. My advice to small business is always stick with what you know and always pay extra for gurus. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I agree with Matt. I think the reason PHP numbers are growing so rapidly is the smaller sites. I mean real small. The "One man online business", the "my blog" page, and the like. Those pages get counted too and are springing up as fast as someone's static IP cable modem is plugged in. 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 agree it has a very strong presence. -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 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 overtake CF as the second most popular Windows scripting > language (behind ASP, of course) sometime next year. > > While Netcraft doesn't troll corporate intranets and such (where I > believe CF has good foothold), it still doesn't bode well for CF in > general. > As much as I would like to use Netcraft's statistics as reason for people to consider Apache over IIS, I don't believe their statistics matter much to mid-size and larger companies. I say this because while it is clear that Apache is the most widely deployed web server across the Internet, I believe IIS is the most widely deployed web server across mid-size and larger companies. That is not to say that Apache doesn't have a large market share for these companies, but it is an important point to ponder. In the case of PHP, there is no doubt that PHP is widely used across the Internet, but I believe its usage is very small in mid-size and larger companies. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 with never-ending development projects using the latest technologies such as pure J2EE and .net. When people learn they can have the the engine (and potentally the functionality if needed) a Hummer at the cost of a Honda Civic, all of the sudden people begin to listen. They need to check the J2EE or .net box. What people want is software developed in a reasonable time that works and can fix without having to break the bank. It turns out people are shying away from complex hard to manage and maintain solutions. Jeremy Brodie Intelix an Edgewater Technology Solutions Company web: http://www.edgewater.com phone:(703) 815-2500 nasdaq symbol: EDGE >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. > >Just a guess > >Stace ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
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 > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > 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. CF > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to maintenance and general infrastructure costs. Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software can be (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the server. All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software costs are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into account). > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional > > Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange > > server). > > > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT > resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific > consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a > 3rd party. All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company wants to spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be sacrificing some things. A full "bullet-proof" system will always cost more. > > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six > > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each > > of these applications only has to save two hours of development time > > due > > to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. > > > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour > per application. True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too many times I've heard "we can't afford CF" only to watch a company spends thousands more pursuing an untried "free" solution. The problem here is almost always one of training and applicability. A company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to free software due to cost concerns. Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may have some experience with. For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time can be split with R&D/Training and down the road you do gain. But for the very small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them into a solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project or one that doesn't meet expectations. Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can "pick up" something easily. My advice to small business is always stick with what you know and always pay extra for gurus. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
> 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 Washington DC, > Virginia, even at bases in Hawaii. Later this year I am > headed to Europe to do some work at some military > installations there...and I see CF everywhere! > > It really has taken off in the intranets; in applications > that aren't even on the internet, such as mine. > > --Josh Hey Josh, Do we have to shoot you now? :-) How did you address Section 508 with your Flash/CF app? George [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Your "definition" may not be so cut and dry. 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). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). Also, the Intranet is generally one place where you must, as a matter of course, amortize the cost of infrastructure over several projects. A public web application may factor in architecture/hosting costs as part of the project: it's likely that those resources will be dedicated to that project. With an Intranet however it's much more likely that those resources will be leveraged for many projects (billing, defect tracking, internal messaging, time/resource management, etc). This is where CF truly shines because ALL of these projects will see development speed and quality increase. With a single application it can become more difficult to factor the cost of the server. For example let's say I'm bidding on a project. It needs a server and I want to use CF Pro ($1,200). If my hourly rate were $100/hour I would have to predict that I'm able to do the job in 12 hours less time than if I want to make the case that CF is not "more expensive". No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. Of course this is very simplistic and your hourly rate will vary, but remember that it's almost always lower than the real cost. Even if you, as a developer-under-contract only charge $50/hour the project cost may easily be $100/per or much more due once you add in meetings, testing, resource usage (rooms, consumables, etc). For all but the smallest projects (or those where there already exists infrastructure and talent in another tool) the cost of CF is easily absorbed into the project plan with no adverse impact on completion costs. But the key is that you do HAVE to work this out: full business cost and return on investment over the predicted lifespan of the project/infrastructure. Too many companies are penny-wise, pound-foolish when it comes to this stuff (saving $1200 on software to spend an extra $5000 in development is a really common occurrence among small businesses). There's often nothing that we, as consultants can do, but we should at least be comfortable that we've done all we can to explain the realities of development. Jim Davis > -Original Message- > 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 the application needs to > be hosted internally. > > -Matt > > On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote: > > > I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I > > have > > to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free > > developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, > > most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many > > CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. > > > > === > > = > > === > > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > > (www.mindseye.com) > > Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small > >> guys add up too. > >> > >> -Matt > >> > > > > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
That is certainly a valid criticism. Although, New Atlanta has stated many times that they aren't trying to compete with Macromedia for customers, but go after customers that Macromedia is about to lose because of platform standardization. In that regard, they don't need to support CFMX tags since their customers only want pre-CFMX CFML applications to work. Obviously, if they want to target CFML developers at large then they are going to need to be compatible with CFMX. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Mike Brunt wrote: > One major consideration re Blue Dragon, they still do not support all > CF > Tags. To be fair they are trying to get there but I am concerned that > we > could get a "Smalltalk" situation with CFML, a great language side > lined by > minor but relevant version-vendor differences. > > 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 > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I > have > to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free > developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, > most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many > CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. > > === > = > === > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > (www.mindseye.com) > Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small >> guys add up too. >> >> -Matt >> > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
One major consideration re Blue Dragon, they still do not support all CF Tags. To be fair they are trying to get there but I am concerned that we could get a "Smalltalk" situation with CFML, a great language side lined by minor but relevant version-vendor differences. 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 Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small > guys add up too. > > -Matt > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
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 be hosted internally. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote: > I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I > have > to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free > developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, > most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many > CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. > > === > = > === > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > (www.mindseye.com) > Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small >> guys add up too. >> >> -Matt >> > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I have to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small > guys add up too. > > -Matt > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
CF licensing (was Re: Re[2]: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
> 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 with tomcat (which is free) it's even better. > That is incorrect. You must have a license to CF on each physical server it is deployed to in production. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 developers are now lucky in that we have more than one vendor offering different things at different prices. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 dont do as jim pointed out and waste the money somewhere else. Matt, i bet u dont drive a kia do u? >> 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. CF > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper > implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. > >> Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts >> for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional >> Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, >> is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an >> Exchange server). >> > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT > resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific > consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a > 3rd party. > >> No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six >> distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each >> of these applications only has to save two hours of development time >> due >> to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. >> > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour > per application. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.MontaraSoftware.com > (888) 408-0900 x901 > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re[2]: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
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 with tomcat (which is free) it's even better. Of course it makes life a little annoying for regular updates but if you've finished a site and are just handing it over it's perfect. DISCLAIMER: I'm yet to actually play with this so there could well be horrific problems with it - but the idea is cool ;) cheers, Toby. Tuesday, September 2, 2003, 4:16:18 PM, you wrote: >> 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). >> ML> I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF ML> could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper ML> implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. >> Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for >> this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional >> Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, >> is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange >> server). >> ML> That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT ML> resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. ML> One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point ML> of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving ML> non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific ML> consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a ML> 3rd party. >> No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six >> distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each >> of these applications only has to save two hours of development time >> due >> to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. >> ML> Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour ML> per application. ML> Matt Liotta ML> President & CEO ML> Montara Software, Inc. ML> http://www.MontaraSoftware.com ML> (888) 408-0900 x901 ML> ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
> 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. CF could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help in that regard. > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional > Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange > server). > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing internal IT resources externally that many of these companies may not be aware of. One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a single point of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to giving non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your email is hosted by a 3rd party. > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each > of these applications only has to save two hours of development time > due > to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one hour per application. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Good detailed points Jim, thanks. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Your "definition" may not be so cut and dry. 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). Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" hosts for this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange hosting, for example, is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an Exchange server). Also, the Intranet is generally one place where you must, as a matter of course, amortize the cost of infrastructure over several projects. A public web application may factor in architecture/hosting costs as part of the project: it's likely that those resources will be dedicated to that project. With an Intranet however it's much more likely that those resources will be leveraged for many projects (billing, defect tracking, internal messaging, time/resource management, etc). This is where CF truly shines because ALL of these projects will see development speed and quality increase. With a single application it can become more difficult to factor the cost of the server. For example let's say I'm bidding on a project. It needs a server and I want to use CF Pro ($1,200). If my hourly rate were $100/hour I would have to predict that I'm able to do the job in 12 hours less time than if I want to make the case that CF is not "more expensive". No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's say, six distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is that each of these applications only has to save two hours of development time due to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" solution. Of course this is very simplistic and your hourly rate will vary, but remember that it's almost always lower than the real cost. Even if you, as a developer-under-contract only charge $50/hour the project cost may easily be $100/per or much more due once you add in meetings, testing, resource usage (rooms, consumables, etc). For all but the smallest projects (or those where there already exists infrastructure and talent in another tool) the cost of CF is easily absorbed into the project plan with no adverse impact on completion costs. But the key is that you do HAVE to work this out: full business cost and return on investment over the predicted lifespan of the project/infrastructure. Too many companies are penny-wise, pound-foolish when it comes to this stuff (saving $1200 on software to spend an extra $5000 in development is a really common occurrence among small businesses). There's often nothing that we, as consultants can do, but we should at least be comfortable that we've done all we can to explain the realities of development. Jim Davis > -Original Message- > 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 the application needs to > be hosted internally. > > -Matt > > On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote: > > > I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I > > have > > to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free > > developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, > > most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many > > CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. > > > > === > > = > > === > > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > > (www.mindseye.com) > > Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > >> > >> > &
RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Matt, good points. I just got back from the 2003 Fusebox conference in Las Vegas. Charlie Areheart (whom I have infinite respect for) was presenting for Blue Dragon and emphasized their goals to bring Blue Dragon into offering the same facilities/tags as CFMX. I hope this really turns out to be a good thing for CF. Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:37 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? That is certainly a valid criticism. Although, New Atlanta has stated many times that they aren't trying to compete with Macromedia for customers, but go after customers that Macromedia is about to lose because of platform standardization. In that regard, they don't need to support CFMX tags since their customers only want pre-CFMX CFML applications to work. Obviously, if they want to target CFML developers at large then they are going to need to be compatible with CFMX. -Matt On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Mike Brunt wrote: > One major consideration re Blue Dragon, they still do not support all > CF > Tags. To be fair they are trying to get there but I am concerned that > we > could get a "Smalltalk" situation with CFML, a great language side > lined by > minor but relevant version-vendor differences. > > 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 > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > I don't need to stand up for MACR, they can do it themselves, but I > have > to ask, what do you mean you can't afford CF? You can't afford the free > developers edition? If your client can't afford CF, then, as you say, > most likely they are 'small guys' - have you considered one of the many > CF ISPs? I used Media3 for years and they were quite affordable. > > === > = > === > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > (www.mindseye.com) > Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small >> guys add up too. >> >> -Matt >> > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
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 another sale, no big loss, but I'm sure the small guys add up too. -Matt -Original Message- From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 .net compiler. -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
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 .net compiler. -- Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.) Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 - Whats new for us? ) > 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 (and Allaire) has already been doing all along. I think that's the market they've always been after. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
> 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 (and Allaire) has already been doing all along. I think that's the market they've always been after. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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... -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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. Just a guess Stace -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? ) 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 code, supported platforms and pure speed will keep CF in competition. These points may be 100% true, but neither addresses the simple observation that PHP usage will soon eclipse that of CF. And what the implications of this will be for CF. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
I don't really see an implication for CF. You seem to be looking at this as if more PHP has to mean less CF - and that's not necessarily so. The market for dynamic pages is simply (I think) expanding - there's room for more than a few successful players. However like others have said the total number of sites using this or that really doesn't matter much to the market. PHP is wildly popular, but has yet to make a dent in the business side of the world: exactly where a pay tool like CF lives. In short PHP seems to be popular in exactly the area that CF isn't (and won't be). I do think that PHP will begin to makes strides in that area soon, but still that doesn't have to mean dreadful things for CF. I think in the end you'll simply see both tools gain popularity. PHP mostly because of the cost of entry and CF mostly because of the cost 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? ) > > 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 code, supported platforms and pure speed will keep CF in > competition. > > > These points may be 100% true, but neither addresses the simple > observation > that PHP usage will soon eclipse that of CF. And what the implications of > this > will be for CF. > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
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 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 code, supported platforms and pure speed will keep CF in competition. These points may be 100% true, but neither addresses the simple observation that PHP usage will soon eclipse that of CF. And what the implications of this will be for CF. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Hmmm...not sure what you mean. If you mean "developement speed" - yes, CF has always had the edge this way. If you need to knock out a quick database-driven site for some intranet/Internet project, CF rocks. Cannot beat it for speed of coding. If you mean (as you sort of allude to) speed of the application, I think that PHP is faster (to parse/compile etc) than CF. Especially on Linux, where CF is actually faster than it is on Windows (at least, this was the case with v5. Anyone know about v6 Linux vs. Windows?) Supported platforms: Uh, PHP runs everywhere. And it's free. PHP supports class construction etcthe code is just as reusable as CF (I think more so, but that's me..) Don't get me wrong; I mainly work in CF, but PHP has a lot to offer. And much as Linux was initially shunned by companies except for "stealth" projects (because there is no shrink-wrapped software), PHP is beginning to creap into more enterprise-type systems in an overt instead of covert manner. The Netcraft posting was just interesting, because PHP is mainly considered a *NIX product; it was interesting to see the increase in Windows PHP use. This makes sense in the "MS has a desktop monopoly" way: Everyone (in this group) has a home computer; even here in tech land, most folks' primary computer is a Windoze box (mine is). May have Linux as well (I have a couple), but the primary box is sometimes the way better (faster box). So install PHP and play on Windows... >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 code, supported platforms and pure speed will keep CF in competition. > >== >Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >For hosting solutions http://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: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf >== >If 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: 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 - will overtake CF as the second most popular Windows scripting >| > language (behind ASP, of course) sometime next year. >| > >| > While Netcraft doesn't troll corporate intranets and such (where I >| > believe CF has good foothold), it still doesn't bode well for CF in >| > general. >| > >| As much as I would like to use Netcraft's statistics as reason for >| people to consider Apache over IIS, I don't believe their statistics >| matter much to mid-size and larger companies. I say this because while >| it is clear that Apache is the most widely deployed web server across >| the Internet, I believe IIS is the most widely deployed web server >| across mid-size and larger companies. That is not to say that Apache >| doesn't have a large market share for these companies, but it is an >| important point to ponder. In the case of PHP, there is no doubt that >| PHP is widely used across the Internet, but I believe its usage is very >| small in mid-size and larger companies. >| >| Matt Liotta >| President & CEO >| Montara Software, Inc. >| http://www.MontaraSoftware.com >| (888) 408-0900 x901 >| >| >| ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
Re: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 code, supported platforms and pure speed will keep CF in competition. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://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: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If 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: 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 - will overtake CF as the second most popular Windows scripting | > language (behind ASP, of course) sometime next year. | > | > While Netcraft doesn't troll corporate intranets and such (where I | > believe CF has good foothold), it still doesn't bode well for CF in | > general. | > | As much as I would like to use Netcraft's statistics as reason for | people to consider Apache over IIS, I don't believe their statistics | matter much to mid-size and larger companies. I say this because while | it is clear that Apache is the most widely deployed web server across | the Internet, I believe IIS is the most widely deployed web server | across mid-size and larger companies. That is not to say that Apache | doesn't have a large market share for these companies, but it is an | important point to ponder. In the case of PHP, there is no doubt that | PHP is widely used across the Internet, but I believe its usage is very | small in mid-size and larger companies. | | Matt Liotta | President & CEO | Montara Software, Inc. | http://www.MontaraSoftware.com | (888) 408-0900 x901 | | | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
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 overtake CF as the second most popular Windows scripting > language (behind ASP, of course) sometime next year. > > While Netcraft doesn't troll corporate intranets and such (where I > believe CF has good foothold), it still doesn't bode well for CF in > general. > As much as I would like to use Netcraft's statistics as reason for people to consider Apache over IIS, I don't believe their statistics matter much to mid-size and larger companies. I say this because while it is clear that Apache is the most widely deployed web server across the Internet, I believe IIS is the most widely deployed web server across mid-size and larger companies. That is not to say that Apache doesn't have a large market share for these companies, but it is an important point to ponder. In the case of PHP, there is no doubt that PHP is widely used across the Internet, but I believe its usage is very small in mid-size and larger companies. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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, 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 troll corporate intranets and such (where I believe CF has good foothold), it still doesn't bode well for CF in general. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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, 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 troll corporate intranets and such (where I believe CF has good foothold), it still doesn't bode well for CF in general. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
You don't use DW and PS on *NIX? Maybe you should check out Crossover Office from CodeWeavers.com. Look at their list of supported apps... Cutter Ben Densmore wrote: > Not to sway too far from what's currently being discussed but is there any > chance that a *NIX version of DW will be made? > > Aren't a majority of the people who use php more into Linux and Unix? > > If they really wanted to get more php users a *NIX version would probably > pique their interest. > > One of the main reasons I don't switch to linux full time is because I can'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 28, 2003 1:39 PM > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > >>Something you have to remember is that Dreamweaver was quite popular >>before MM had CF in it's toolkit. You can't expect them to totally >>change the strategy of an already popular tool just to please the CF >>community. There's a large DW community as well and they do not all - or >>even most - use CF. >> >>Marketing is targeted to increase sales in a certain area. CF developers >>already buy DW and are keenly aware of it, there is no competing product >>for CF developers, it's the other folks that need to be introduced to it >>and need to be shown how it compares to their current tools. >> >>Granted, I pretty much stopped using DW when MX rolled out, but lots of >>people love it. You can't expect MM to stop schmoozing it's pre-existing >>customer base and ONLY focus on CF. Seriously now, you don't want all >>those ASP and PHP folks spending their money somewhere else - the beauty >>of it is that all of those people who buy DW and use it to code PHP and >>ASP are contributing to the future of MM and CF with their funds. >> >>In the end, I think having an IDE that welcomes other developers is an >>excellent R&D opportunity as well. If MM knows what ASP and PHP coders >>are doing, what their tools offer, etc. it gives them better insight on >>how to keep CF competitive - or one step ahead as is the current >>situation. >> >>I think that would be a better angle for you than touting Dreamweaver as >>your IDE, to say that all of those people coming in to do ASP >>development obviously believe in Macromedia - they use their tools. Then >>you can tell them the other developers are just too cheap to fork over >>the $ for a real App Server and that's why they choose ASP :) >> >>Joshua Miller >>Head Programmer / IT Manager >>Garrison Enterprises Inc. >>www.garrisonenterprises.net >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>(704) 569-0801 ext. 254 >> >> >>* >>Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, >>except where the sender states them to be the views of >>Garrison Enterprises Inc. >> >>This e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is >>addressed and contains information that is private and confidential. If >>you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any >>dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you >>have received this e-mail in error please delete it immediately and >>advise us by return e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>* >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:15 PM >>To: CF-Talk >>Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? >> >> >>Listen, >> >>I am by far not the only one that has responded to this topic,so don't >>make it appear as though I'm bitching up a storm unnecessarily. >> >>>From Ben Forta's reply, the thread has been read and salient portions >>sent onto the right people. >> >>Ergo the discussion has helped in whatever small way. >> >>Ciao. >>-Angel >> >>P.s. in answer to your questions: >> >>"Are you saying that your clients will choose whether or not to >>give you work based on the IDE you use?" No. >> >>"Further, are you saying that you pitch CF as a solution to your clients >>partly because of DW MX?" >> >>Because of MM support for DWMX and it's a
RE: CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
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 Washington DC, Virginia, even at bases in Hawaii. Later this year I am headed to Europe to do some work at some military installations there...and I see CF everywhere! It really has taken off in the intranets; in applications that aren't even on the internet, such as mine. --Josh > -Original 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]> > > > > 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., ...) > > And this only counts what is available to the general public. Presumably > if > they are using CF for their public sites they also are using it internally > on their intranets and extranets. I suspect that many federal government > agencies have a larger internal web presence than a public one. > > George > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com
CF usage growing or shrinking? (was DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
> 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., ...) And this only counts what is available to the general public. Presumably if they are using CF for their public sites they also are using it internally on their intranets and extranets. I suspect that many federal government agencies have a larger internal web presence than a public one. George [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
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 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 (..) is now > generally managed via a web interface (..)" and asking you to > elaborate on that. > Because as far as my experience goes, on most network equipment > web interfaces are not used for management except for occasional > troubleshooting and to provide management with something with > nice colors and graphs they think they can understand. > > Jochem > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
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 (..) is now generally managed via a web interface (..)" and asking you to elaborate on that. Because as far as my experience goes, on most network equipment web interfaces are not used for management except for occasional troubleshooting and to provide management with something with nice colors and graphs they think they can understand. Jochem ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: devices (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
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 further what I thought was the more on topic and useful insight, which is that in many cases these web applications are in fact running on top of Servlet engines. Additionally, people might be interested to know that at least in the case of Cisco, the Servlet engine they OEMed is New Atlanta's ServletExec. Imagine how cool it would be if New Atlanta convinced one or more of its OEMs to use BlueDragon instead. That would really have an impact on CF's market share. -Matt On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Jochem van Dieten wrote: > Matt Liotta wrote: >>> Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web >>> interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the >>> equipment that has more options as a digital watch. >>> >> >> I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they >> certainly >> have web interfaces. I am talking about enterprise class and telecom >> grade equipment from vendors such as Cisco. See >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1831/ >> products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca66a.html, where Cisco >> talks about the embedded web interface to IOS. > > Yes, that makes it manageable through HTTP. > > So does that mean that the average ISP is going to configure his > 16000 ATM BitStream VCi's on his Cisco 6400 BBRAS through a web > interface? Will a telco keep on clicking in the HTTP interface of >his DSLAMs until he has configured the sync speed for each > customers DSL link correctly. Or will he do that through some > other protocol? > And how about traffic monitoring applications, for instance > http://wwwstats.net.wisc.edu/, is that done by HTTP or by reading > the port counters with SNMP? > > > HTTP interfaces are very nice for troubleshooting network > equipment because it means you don't have to know the MIB by > hard, but not for normal operation. > > Jochem > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
