The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

All-

Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address something 
that is bothering me a great deal.

Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that 
Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will about the way 
MM communicates things.

Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon have 
both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was the fact 
several people basically said:

"OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible bugs are fixed".

This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many people 
are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums. This is the scenario 
that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who will post to forums, and 
mailing lists in a typical day are those who have issues.

Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was 
crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?

No.

It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out because 
there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument that this is far, 
very far, from the truth.

Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the 
debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if you actually 
downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of taking the "word" of the 
mailing lists and forums.

CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of ColdFusion 
*ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.

I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being raised 
have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply environmental. I would also 
state that the only people who raise the "CFMX is Poop" flag are those who have hit a 
bug, or other issue, which is show stopping to *them*. Remember, hundreds of people 
download CFMX daily (we have the numbers that show this) and run it without issue.

*of COURSE* those people who run into any type of problem are immediately 
going to identify that problem as a "show stopper" and post to the mailing lists and 
the forums screaming as loud as they can to hopefully either find a solution or get 
Macromedia to help them "for free".

I can only stress that those of you reading these lists and the forums take 
everything you see with a grain of salt. Not everyone is running into these issues, 
everyone is not "throwing CFMX out the window". We have *many* customers running CFMX 
in production, under load, daily, fine.

If you install CFMX, and you run it, and you find an issue, I cannot stress 
enough that you contact support *immediately* to get that issue addressed ASAP. 

I will not admit that the ColdFusion team (myself included) shipped "Poop". I 
will not admit to having wasted nearly two years of my life, I know this is *not* the 
case. I personally believe that the "firestorms" shown on this list, and the forums, 
are not the rule, but rather the exception to the rule.

Please, try it out *for yourselves* before passing judgment.


Sorry for ranting, it bothers me. A lot.


Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development

"No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the
sum of his knowledge." 
- Ayn Rand
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Simon Whittaker]

Hi there,

Just wanted to add my 2c to this issue - We recently installed a version of
cfmx on a completely clean server - the server itself runs fine but the
amount of trouble we have had trying to get our previous applications to run
under CFMX is mind boggling. I am sure that CFMX is as good as you describe
it - of course there will be issues, there always are with new/updated
products BUT it is my belief that these  products should have backwards
compatability, ie sites that run under CF5 should also run under CFMX which
is just doesn't seem to be the case at present, I know that unfortunately
there will be a lot of redevelopment to make some of our more complex apps
run under CFMX.

Cheers

Simon


- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Noller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:48 PM
Subject: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


> All-
>
> Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address
something that is bothering me a great deal.
>
> Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that
Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will
about the way MM communicates things.
>
> Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon have
both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was the
fact several people basically said:
>
> "OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible
bugs are fixed".
>
> This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many
people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums. This
is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who
will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day are those who have
issues.
>
> Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was
crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?
>
> No.
>
> It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out
because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument
that this is far, very far, from the truth.
>
> Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the
debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if
you actually downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of taking
the "word" of the mailing lists and forums.
>
> CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of
ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.
>
> I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being
raised have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply
environmental. I would also state that the only people who raise the "CFMX
is Poop" flag are those who have hit a bug, or other issue, which is show
stopping to *them*. Remember, hundreds of people download CFMX daily (we
have the numbers that show this) and run it without issue.
>
> *of COURSE* those people who run into any type of problem are immediately
going to identify that problem as a "show stopper" and post to the mailing
lists and the forums screaming as loud as they can to hopefully either find
a solution or get Macromedia to help them "for free".
>
> I can only stress that those of you reading these lists and the forums
take everything you see with a grain of salt. Not everyone is running into
these issues, everyone is not "throwing CFMX out the window". We have *many*
customers running CFMX in production, under load, daily, fine.
>
> If you install CFMX, and you run it, and you find an issue, I cannot
stress enough that you contact support *immediately* to get that issue
addressed ASAP.
>
> I will not admit that the ColdFusion team (myself included) shipped
"Poop". I will not admit to having wasted nearly two years of my life, I
know this is *not* the case. I personally believe that the "firestorms"
shown on this list, and the forums, are not the rule, but rather the
exception to the rule.
>
> Please, try it out *for yourselves* before passing judgment.
>
>
> Sorry for ranting, it bothers me. A lot.
>
>
> Jesse Noller
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Macromedia Server Development
>
> "No concept man forms is valid unless he
> integrates it without contradiction into the
> sum of his knowledge."
> - Ayn Rand
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jeffry Houser]

At 08:48 AM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of 
> ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.

  I might argue this point.
  I believe I once heard Ben Forta say ( Or read an e-mail he typed ) that 
CF5 was built off of CF4.5 .

  That makes sense and is expected and is not a surprise.  But, that would 
leave me to believe all the beta testing and experimentation and real world 
use that went into cf4.5 carried over into CF5.  And everything in CF3 
rolled over into CF4, and CF2 rolled over into CF3, etc.. etc..
  Being a new code-base, CFMX has not had that benefit.


--
Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need a Web Developer?  Contact me!
AIM: Reboog711  | Phone: 1-203-379-0773
--
My CFMX Book: 

My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com
My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com 

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

Simon-

This is another "gripe" of mine. The issue is that we tested backwards 
compatibility extensively, almost exhaustively. 

What *specific* issues did you run into? Were you running Fusebox? Was your 
application using "improper" coding methodologies, what were the *specific* problems?

Did you contact technical support? What was the resolution?

CFMX is as backwards compatible as we could make it in the time allocated. We 
took many customer applications in house and ran them with little or *no* 
modification. 

You are correct, a new version will never be 100% compatible, but once again, 
there are hundreds of people who upgraded without issue. You ran into a specific 
problem that was a show stopper to *you* while many people were unfettered by this.

CFMX is "backwards compatible", as much as we could make it within reason. 
Will you need to massage things? Yes, much like upgrading *any other software package 
on any platform anywhere*.


Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development

"No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the
sum of his knowledge." 
- Ayn Rand

> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Whittaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 8:58 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> Just wanted to add my 2c to this issue - We recently installed a version
> of
> cfmx on a completely clean server - the server itself runs fine but the
> amount of trouble we have had trying to get our previous applications to
> run
> under CFMX is mind boggling. I am sure that CFMX is as good as you
> describe
> it - of course there will be issues, there always are with new/updated
> products BUT it is my belief that these  products should have backwards
> compatability, ie sites that run under CF5 should also run under CFMX
> which
> is just doesn't seem to be the case at present, I know that unfortunately
> there will be a lot of redevelopment to make some of our more complex apps
> run under CFMX.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jesse Noller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:48 PM
> Subject: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> 
> > All-
> >
> > Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address
> something that is bothering me a great deal.
> >
> > Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that
> Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will
> about the way MM communicates things.
> >
> > Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon
> have
> both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was
> the
> fact several people basically said:
> >
> > "OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible
> bugs are fixed".
> >
> > This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many
> people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums.
> This
> is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who
> will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day are those who have
> issues.
> >
> > Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was
> crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out
> because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument
> that this is far, very far, from the truth.
> >
> > Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the
> debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if
> you actually downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of
> taking
> the "word" of the mailing lists and forums.
> >
> > CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of
> ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.
> >
> > I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being
> raised have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply
> environmental. I would also state that the only people who raise the "CFMX
> is Poop" flag are those who have hit a bug, or other issue, which is show
> stopping to *them*. Remember, hundreds of people download CFMX daily (we
> have the numbers 

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

>   I might argue this point.
>   I believe I once heard Ben Forta say ( Or read an e-mail he typed ) that
> CF5 was built off of CF4.5 .
> 
>   That makes sense and is expected and is not a surprise.  But, that would
> leave me to believe all the beta testing and experimentation and real
> world
> use that went into cf4.5 carried over into CF5.  And everything in CF3
> rolled over into CF4, and CF2 rolled over into CF3, etc.. etc..
>   Being a new code-base, CFMX has not had that benefit.
> 

While it is true one can assume that the testing in CF 4.5 "rolled into" CF5, 
that is both true, and false to a degree.

While one can make assumptions about functionality when utilizing the same 
code base, when you rewrite the entire thing, you *do* loose previous testing, 
however...

We had a *huge* team working on CFMX, we ran hundreds of thousands of hours of 
regression. Thousands of regression tests, many customer application, we ran it under 
load for WEEKS.

This is what I mean when I say most tested. CFMX spent more time under the 
microscope than any other .rev of ColdFusion ever. 

-jesse
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Dave Wilson]

Jesse,

Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent threads, I'd
like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers highlighting
the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
"continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.

I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF
supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of days, to
"go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very obvious
problems myself - which, I am still working on solving at the moment after 3
days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major problems lie now.

Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (thats pretty obvious).
Whilst there is also a problem with installing CFMX on a Server which had a
previous version of CF on it before, despite removing old registry keys and
directories.

I believe Vernon has already picked up on these issues and is going to try
and raise them internally with MM.

I don't have a problem with MM. They're doing grand as far as I can see,
considering their size. Maybe I'm just used to large corporate bureaucracy
at this stage, with much much larger and slower entities (oil and automotive
companies). Maybe too, I have come to take the cf-talk list for granted as
an effective channel for solving issues with CF - over the years. I've seen
issues raised on the list being actively tackled head on by both MM and
Allaire in the past. Yes developers are looking for what is effectively
"free" support - but it's support at a cost to the developer in terms of
time etc - e.g. I've lost almost 3 days in my current situation, but at
least I'm proactively ruling out things and feeding back my findings to the
people who may need that info i.e. MM or the CF Community.

Just my 2c.
Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 October 2002 13:48
To: CF-Talk
Subject: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


All-

Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address
something that is bothering me a great deal.

Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that
Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will
about the way MM communicates things.

Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon have
both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was the
fact several people basically said:

"OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible bugs
are fixed".

This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many
people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums. This
is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who
will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day are those who have
issues.

Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was
crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?

No.

It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out
because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument
that this is far, very far, from the truth.

Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the
debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if
you actually downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of taking
the "word" of the mailing lists and forums.

CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of
ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.

I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being
raised have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply
environmental. I would also state that the only people who raise the "CFMX
is Poop" flag are those who have hit a bug, or other issue, which is show
stopping to *them*. Remember, hundreds of people download CFMX daily (we
have the numbers that show this) and run it without issue.

*of COURSE* those people who run into any type of problem are immediately
going to identify that problem as a "show stopper" and post to the mailing
lists and the forums screaming as loud as they can to hopefully either find
a solution or get Macromedia to help them "for free".

I can only stress that those of you reading these lists and the forums take
everything you see with a grain of salt. Not everyone is running into these
issues, everyone is not "throwing CFMX out the window". We have *many*
customers running CFMX in production, under load, daily, fine.

   

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jochem van Dieten]

Quoting Simon Whittaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> Just wanted to add my 2c to this issue - We recently installed a
> version of cfmx on a completely clean server - the server itself runs
> fine but the amount of trouble we have had trying to get our previous
> applications to run under CFMX is mind boggling.

What issues *exactly*?
Which of those were not documented?


> I am sure that CFMX
> is as good as you describe it - of course there will be issues, there
> always are with new/updated products BUT it is my belief that these 
> products should have backwards compatability, ie sites that run under
> CF5 should also run under CFMX which is just doesn't seem to be the
> case at present, I know that unfortunately there will be a lot of
> redevelopment to make some of our more complex apps run under CFMX.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you here. Environment changes are 
something that might force changes in an application, to the extend 
that your only option is to either accept the changes or don't change 
the environment.
For instance, I think the ODBC spec lets you issue multiple prepared 
statements at once, which the JDBC spec appears to forbid. In that 
case, I vote for dropping this feature, which was never explicitly 
supported anyway, instead of not moving to a Java based architecture.

All changes have to be documented, but incomplete backward 
compatibility is not a reason to just keep everything the same.

Jochem
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jeffry Houser]

At 09:10 AM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Simon-
>
> This is another "gripe" of mine. The issue is that we tested 
> backwards compatibility extensively, almost exhaustively.
>
> What *specific* issues did you run into? Were you running Fusebox?

  : chuckle:  I found this funny.  Asking Simon if he uses Fusebox, is like 
asking Hal Helms if he uses cfobjects.

  Back to your regularly scheduled list posting now.


--
Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need a Web Developer?  Contact me!
AIM: Reboog711  | Phone: 1-203-379-0773
--
My CFMX Book: 

My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com
My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com 

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Benoit Hediard]

Well said Jesse.
The funny thing is that most of the people complaining during those threads
have problems with JDBC, which is not directly related to MM/CFMX (but more
to third party JDBC drivers or M$ implementation)...
SQL Server 7 is getting very old right now (and it's a M$ product), so I
would not be surprised if it has some problems with JDBC.

CFMX is a GREAT product and works extremely well (for a V1.0!).
Of course, there is some minor "pure CF" issues but all of them have easy
workarounds.

I will NEVER go back to CF5.
CFCs and Flash Remoting have an incredible potential and offer so many great
new possibilities.
People also have to think about "what they can do now"... (which was
impossible with CF5-)

Benoit Hediard
www.benorama.com


-Message d'origine-
De : Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2002 14:48
À : CF-Talk
Objet : The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


All-

Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address
something that is bothering me a great deal.

Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that
Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will
about the way MM communicates things.

Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon have
both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was the
fact several people basically said:

"OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible bugs
are fixed".

This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many
people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums. This
is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who
will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day are those who have
issues.

Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was
crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?

No.

It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out
because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument
that this is far, very far, from the truth.

Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the
debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if
you actually downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of taking
the "word" of the mailing lists and forums.

CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of
ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.

I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being
raised have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply
environmental. I would also state that the only people who raise the "CFMX
is Poop" flag are those who have hit a bug, or other issue, which is show
stopping to *them*. Remember, hundreds of people download CFMX daily (we
have the numbers that show this) and run it without issue.

*of COURSE* those people who run into any type of problem are immediately
going to identify that problem as a "show stopper" and post to the mailing
lists and the forums screaming as loud as they can to hopefully either find
a solution or get Macromedia to help them "for free".

I can only stress that those of you reading these lists and the forums take
everything you see with a grain of salt. Not everyone is running into these
issues, everyone is not "throwing CFMX out the window". We have *many*
customers running CFMX in production, under load, daily, fine.

If you install CFMX, and you run it, and you find an issue, I cannot stress
enough that you contact support *immediately* to get that issue addressed
ASAP.

I will not admit that the ColdFusion team (myself included) shipped "Poop".
I will not admit to having wasted nearly two years of my life, I know this
is *not* the case. I personally believe that the "firestorms" shown on this
list, and the forums, are not the rule, but rather the exception to the
rule.

Please, try it out *for yourselves* before passing judgment.


Sorry for ranting, it bothers me. A lot.


Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development

"No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the
sum of his knowledge."
- Ayn Rand

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jon Hall]

Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 8:48:24 AM, you wrote:
JN> All-
JN> Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address something that 
is bothering me a great deal.

Hey, don't forget, people are passionate about CF, and that's a good
thing.

Every CF developer has had to basically start from scratch...way back
in the pre-MX era we could all count on a dozen people knowing the
answer to an odd CF problem. Now, no one really knows all the answers
yet, and there is naturally going to be a lot more unresolved quesions
than their used to be until we all figure out the answers to the new
questions. We will get there.

-- 
jon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Mark A. Kruger - CFG]

Jesse,

ok - now you got my dander up a little ;)



>This is another "gripe" of mine. The issue is that we tested backwards
compatibility extensively, almost exhaustively.
>   What *specific* issues did you run into? Were you running Fusebox? Was
your application using "improper" coding methodologies, what were the
>*specific* problems?

What improper coding methodologies?  Are you saying there's a secret
"standards" book out there that MM has written and that everyone must follow
to be sure that things are backward compatible? Did no one check to see if
Fusebox would work on CFMX?  CF supports a variety of coding methodologies
from very good to very bad - and to argue that CFMX was only designed for
the "proper" coding methodologies implies that someone, somewhere has
codified what that means. Some might argue that's one of the big issues with
CFML.  I've been involved in the community for years and I'd have to say
that there is no "agreed upon" standards.  There are some generally accepted
best practices - but that is not the same thing.

Let me add that I'm a CFMX believer.  All the CF projects we are doing
"going forward" are on CFMX. We are also excited about and actively using
flash remoting with cfmx.  So I'm not down on cfmx - nor do I think that
true backward-compatibility could be acheived for more than about 80% of
applications out there.  My point is, CF 5 aps that ran perfectly well "may"
not run so well on CFMX - and the fault is with the technology path (moving
to a Java based platform).  It's unfair to say "...well, they weren't
written correctly to begin with".

Again - I mean to be friendly here, not snipish - hence the smily face :)

-mk


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

> Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent threads,
> I'd
> like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> highlighting
> the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.

Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read them, degenerated into a 
series of "throw it out the door" and "I won't be buying it" etc, etc, etc.

People need to realize that yes while software might have issues, and they do want 
help publicly, there are other people who are reading these mediums who are directly 
making decisions based off of the words of the people within this community.

If I was a new CFMX customer, and I read the threads from the past few days(weeks) I 
would send my boxed copy back to macromedia saying "that was fun, no?" 

New users, and "on the fence" users are strongly influenced by the posts here and on 
the forums by you, the cf "luminaries". 

> I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF
> supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of days,
> to
> "go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very obvious
> problems myself - which, I am still working on solving at the moment after
> 3
> days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major problems lie now.

Except your post of "try it for yourself" was drowned out by plenty of other people 
chanting the "MM sux and CFMX is poop" line. The fact is that the posts made here and 
elsewhere directly effect those people wanting to "jump into CF" 

> Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (thats pretty obvious).
> Whilst there is also a problem with installing CFMX on a Server which had
> a
> previous version of CF on it before, despite removing old registry keys
> and
> directories.
> 
> I believe Vernon has already picked up on these issues and is going to try
> and raise them internally with MM.

Yes, however, do not assume this will happen 100% of the time, Vernon, Sean, Mike and 
I are doing what we can, when we have time, but this is not the best, or recommended 
way of getting things escalated!

> I don't have a problem with MM. They're doing grand as far as I can see,
> considering their size. Maybe I'm just used to large corporate bureaucracy
> at this stage, with much much larger and slower entities (oil and
> automotive
> companies). Maybe too, I have come to take the cf-talk list for granted as
> an effective channel for solving issues with CF - over the years. I've
> seen
> issues raised on the list being actively tackled head on by both MM and
> Allaire in the past. Yes developers are looking for what is effectively
> "free" support - but it's support at a cost to the developer in terms of
> time etc - e.g. I've lost almost 3 days in my current situation, but at
> least I'm proactively ruling out things and feeding back my findings to
> the
> people who may need that info i.e. MM or the CF Community.

However, there is a distinct difference between rational discourse, and a "mob 
mentality" when it comes to commenting on issues. 

My point is simple, take the posts here and elsewhere with a grain of salt, realize 
that many of these people are not the rule, rather the exception.

Most of all, watch what you post, you, as community members, effect the perception of 
CF as a *whole*.

The community runs under the "mob" system, while 25 people may run fine and say so, 
100 people are screaming about $RAND issues. The 25 are ignored, and the 100 are taken 
as gospel.

See what I mean?



Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development

"No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the
sum of his knowledge." 
- Ayn Rand 

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Matt Liotta]

> Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read them,
degenerated
> into a series of "throw it out the door" and "I won't be buying it"
etc,
> etc, etc.
> 
It seems like most of the people participating in the thread had already
bought CFMX and were just having problems with it.

> People need to realize that yes while software might have issues, and
they
> do want help publicly, there are other people who are reading these
> mediums who are directly making decisions based off of the words of
the
> people within this community.
> 
> If I was a new CFMX customer, and I read the threads from the past few
> days(weeks) I would send my boxed copy back to macromedia saying "that
was
> fun, no?"
> 
> New users, and "on the fence" users are strongly influenced by the
posts
> here and on the forums by you, the cf "luminaries".
>
I don't think it is really fair to put Macromedia's PR problems from
yesterday on the participants in the thread. It seems to me that many of
the people on the thread didn't just throw up their hands as soon as
they ran into problems. It seemed more like the people were giving up
after spending significant time on their problems with CFMX without
resolution. IMHO, Macromedia should have caught on earlier and maybe the
situation wouldn't have happened.

> Yes, however, do not assume this will happen 100% of the time, Vernon,
> Sean, Mike and I are doing what we can, when we have time, but this is
not
> the best, or recommended way of getting things escalated!
> 
And the community has spoken time and time again that the recommended
way is no good. Who is really to blame here?

-Matt

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

> What improper coding methodologies?  Are you saying there's a secret
> "standards" book out there that MM has written and that everyone must
> follow
> to be sure that things are backward compatible? Did no one check to see if
> Fusebox would work on CFMX?  CF supports a variety of coding methodologies
> from very good to very bad - and to argue that CFMX was only designed for
> the "proper" coding methodologies implies that someone, somewhere has
> codified what that means. Some might argue that's one of the big issues
> with
> CFML.  I've been involved in the community for years and I'd have to say
> that there is no "agreed upon" standards.  There are some generally
> accepted
> best practices - but that is not the same thing.

I am not arguing that "only" proper coding methodologies are supported, I am saying 
the CFML caters to yes, a wide variety of coders, and methodologies, however, we 
cannot be expected to support applications that were coded "loosely".

No, there are no agreed upon standards, however, you cannot simply code as you will, 
and then expect everything, no matter how badly/loosely coded to be supported all the 
time, out of the box.

Case in point, Spectra. Spectra was NOT coded badly, however, it has a lot of highly 
custom code within it, not all of the methods utilized in the application were 
supported moving forward. This is a fact of upgrading/migrating to a new revision of 
any coding language or software package.

So, say you use something like, (lets pick on something easy) fusebox. Fusebox is a 
"methodology" for programming your CF application. Now, say you have a huge 
application written in it, a lot of customization...

Is it reasonable to expect every single function, line of code, etc to be fully 
functional when an entire REWRITE of the language is done?

No. It's not. You will run into problems, this is part of the problem with allowing 
"any type of coding" to be utilized.

Look at Apache, and inside of that, Apache modules. When apache 2 came out, one could 
"run" old modules inside of the new system, however, they never made the claim of 100% 
backwards compatibility; they said it was "compatible". The statements, while 
seemingly the same, are completely and totally different.

That being said, if you run into something that worked in CF5, and does NOT work in 
CFMX, and it's NOT documented, it's a *BUG* and Macromedia should be contacted 
directly about it.


> Let me add that I'm a CFMX believer.  All the CF projects we are doing
> "going forward" are on CFMX. We are also excited about and actively using
> flash remoting with cfmx.  So I'm not down on cfmx - nor do I think that
> true backward-compatibility could be acheived for more than about 80% of
> applications out there.  My point is, CF 5 aps that ran perfectly well
> "may"
> not run so well on CFMX - and the fault is with the technology path
> (moving
> to a Java based platform).  It's unfair to say "...well, they weren't
> written correctly to begin with".
> 
> Again - I mean to be friendly here, not snipish - hence the smily face :)

So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working? What if he had 
simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame then?

-jesse
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

> It seems like most of the people participating in the thread had already
> bought CFMX and were just having problems with it.

Re-read it, more people jumped in, and it's not just yesterday's thread.

> I don't think it is really fair to put Macromedia's PR problems from
> yesterday on the participants in the thread. It seems to me that many of
> the people on the thread didn't just throw up their hands as soon as
> they ran into problems. It seemed more like the people were giving up
> after spending significant time on their problems with CFMX without
> resolution. IMHO, Macromedia should have caught on earlier and maybe the
> situation wouldn't have happened.

How can we catch on when they do not contact us via the proper manner?

> And the community has spoken time and time again that the recommended
> way is no good. Who is really to blame here?

The way we have it now may "not be the proper" way in your eyes, but as that is the 
*currently supported method* it doesn't leave any room for argument, now does it?

Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
assigning
someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."

Public relations and perception can make or break a company
these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing List / Forum
Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
production who could provide a "first response" technical support
to users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts
in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
an answer in minutes, not hours or days.

After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter then decide which
issues
should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.

One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the support one
can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in a support
network.
Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's formal support
requirements.

I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
full-time,
because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.

Would that work?

Rick

Rick Faircloth,
Prism Productions



-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


> Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent threads,
> I'd
> like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> highlighting
> the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.

Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read them, degenerated
into a series of "throw it out the door" and "I won't be buying it" etc,
etc, etc.

People need to realize that yes while software might have issues, and they
do want help publicly, there are other people who are reading these mediums
who are directly making decisions based off of the words of the people
within this community.

If I was a new CFMX customer, and I read the threads from the past few
days(weeks) I would send my boxed copy back to macromedia saying "that was
fun, no?"

New users, and "on the fence" users are strongly influenced by the posts
here and on the forums by you, the cf "luminaries".

> I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF
> supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of days,
> to
> "go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very obvious
> problems myself - which, I am still working on solving at the moment after
> 3
> days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major problems lie now.

Except your post of "try it for yourself" was drowned out by plenty of other
people chanting the "MM sux and CFMX is poop" line. The fact is that the
posts made here and elsewhere directly effect those people wanting to "jump
into CF"

> Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (thats pretty obvious).
> Whilst there is also a problem with installing CFMX on a Server which had
> a
> previous version of CF on it before, despite removing old registry keys
> and
> directories.
>
> I believe Vernon has already picked up on these issues and is going to try
> and raise them internally with MM.

Yes, however, do not assume this will happen 100% of the time, Vernon, Sean,
Mike and I are doing what we can, when we have time, but this is not the
best, or recommended way of getting things escalated!

> I don't have a problem with MM. They're doing grand as far as I can see,
> considering their size. Maybe I'm just used to large corporate bureaucracy
> at this stage, with much much larger and slower entities (oil and
> automotive
> companies). Maybe too, I have come to take the cf-talk list for granted as
> an effective channel for solving issues with CF - over the years. I've
> seen
> issues raised on the list being actively tackled head on by both MM and
> Allaire in the past. Yes developers are looking for what is effectively
> "free" support - but it's support at a cost to the developer in terms of
> time etc - e.g. I've lost almost 3 days in my current situation, but at
> least I'm proactively ruling out thing

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Mark A. Kruger - CFG]

-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


< Let me add that I'm a CFMX believer.  All the CF projects we are doing
> "going forward" are on CFMX. We are also excited about and actively using
> flash remoting with cfmx.  So I'm not down on cfmx - nor do I think that
> true backward-compatibility could be acheived for more than about 80% of
> applications out there.  My point is, CF 5 aps that ran perfectly well
> "may"
> not run so well on CFMX - and the fault is with the technology path
> (moving
> to a Java based platform).  It's unfair to say "...well, they weren't
> written correctly to begin with".
>
> Again - I mean to be friendly here, not snipish - hence the smily face :)

So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working? What
if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame then?


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Mark A. Kruger - CFG]

Jesse,

--- you wrote ---

>So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working?
What if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame
then?

First ... who's been leaking that you my applications aren't working .
Second, I'm not "blaming the move to Java" - merely stating what is now a
widely accepted point of view that moving from C++ to Java as a code base,
changing the underlying architecture, moving to JDBC, greatly enhancing the
feature set, introducing flash remoting, cfcs, Java tag libraries, etc, etc,
etc, was BIG change - not an incremental one.  In fact, I'm not blaming
anyone.  I think MM has done a fine job all things considering and the
amount of compatibility between the old platform and the new is quite
amazing.

As I stated, I believe that 80% of applications will work quite well ported
from CF 5 to CFMX. I think is unrealistic to NOT expect these problems.  Did
you ever go through a peoplesoft upgrade?  Macola?  How about SQL 6.5 to
7.0?  These were all VERY challenging upgrade paths - and NONE of them moved
to an entirely different language and platform for the code base. I'm not
decrying the "lack of backward compatibility" - I'm simply trying to be
realistic.  How many of us really thought that all our pet COM objects would
be supported? I was amazed they got COM to work at all .

-mk


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Sean A Corfield]

On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 08:41 US/Pacific, Jesse Noller wrote:
> So, say you use something like, (lets pick on something easy) fusebox. 
> Fusebox

Let me jump in before people start flaming Jesse for "picking on" 
Fusebox...

> is a "methodology" for programming your CF application. Now, say you 
> have a huge application written in it, a lot of customization...
>
> Is it reasonable to expect every single function, line of code, etc to 
> be fully functional when an entire REWRITE of the language is done?
>
> No. It's not. You will run into problems, this is part of the problem 
> with allowing "any type of coding" to be utilized.

..a concrete example in this context is the use of 'url' as a variable 
name. In CFMX, 'url' is a struct because it represents a scope (just 
like session, request etc). CF5 let you have free (unqualified) 
variables with these names - CFMX does not. It's a small change that 
tightens up the language. What it breaks is code that relies on 
*unqualified* variables called url, session, scope etc. I was told (and 
I have not been able to verify this) that an earlier version of FB used 
'url' as an unqualified variable name.

That's the sort of thing Jesse means:
- good practice: scope your variables and give them descriptive names
- bad practice: reusing an existing name (a scope name) for a different 
purpose

An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
Architecting a New Internet Experience
Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Matt Liotta]

> How can we catch on when they do not contact us via the proper manner?
> 
It seems participation in the community would do it.

> The way we have it now may "not be the proper" way in your eyes, but
as
> that is the *currently supported method* it doesn't leave any room for
> argument, now does it?
> 
It isn't a matter of what I personally think. It is a matter of what the
general sentiment in the community is. It is clear to me that the
community prefers open and public interaction with their peers over
calling technical support and giving a credit card number. It doesn't
matter what Macromedia's policy is in this regard if the community
doesn't agree. People will continue to avoid the route suggested by
Macromedia until Macromedia changes its policy to one the community
likes better.

> Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.
>
Sure it does if enough people are saying it.

-Matt

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Matt Robertson]

> Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.

Nor does it make "x" work any better than it does now.  I think that
might have been his point.

The lesson MM should learn from yesterday isn't that anyone thinks "CFMX
is poop".  MM needs to take a hard look at its support system, bug
tracking, bug reporting ... I'll repeat the mantra: communication.

*That's* where the gangrene is setting in, which is a shame.

--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com




~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Michael Dinowitz]

That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community manager for MM. Of
course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor and answer
questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility comes around,
Vernon's the guy.
And personally, I think he's doing a great job.


> I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
> this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
> assigning
> someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
>
> Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing List / Forum
> Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> to users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts
> in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
>
> After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter then decide which
> issues
> should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.
>
> One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the support one
> can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in a support
> network.
> Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's formal support
> requirements.
>
> I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
> full-time,
> because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.
>
> Would that work?
>
> Rick
>
> Rick Faircloth,
> Prism Productions
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:52 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> > Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> > misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent threads,
> > I'd
> > like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> > highlighting
> > the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> > "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
>
> Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read them, degenerated
> into a series of "throw it out the door" and "I won't be buying it" etc,
> etc, etc.
>
> People need to realize that yes while software might have issues, and they
> do want help publicly, there are other people who are reading these
mediums
> who are directly making decisions based off of the words of the people
> within this community.
>
> If I was a new CFMX customer, and I read the threads from the past few
> days(weeks) I would send my boxed copy back to macromedia saying "that was
> fun, no?"
>
> New users, and "on the fence" users are strongly influenced by the posts
> here and on the forums by you, the cf "luminaries".
>
> > I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF
> > supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of days,
> > to
> > "go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very obvious
> > problems myself - which, I am still working on solving at the moment
after
> > 3
> > days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major problems lie now.
>
> Except your post of "try it for yourself" was drowned out by plenty of
other
> people chanting the "MM sux and CFMX is poop" line. The fact is that the
> posts made here and elsewhere directly effect those people wanting to
"jump
> into CF"
>
> > Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (thats pretty
obvious).
> > Whilst there is also a problem with installing CFMX on a Server which
had
> > a
> > previous version of CF on it before, despite removing old registry keys
> > and
> > directories.
> >
> > I believe Vernon has already picked up on these issues and is going to
try
> > and raise them internally with MM.
>
> Yes, however, do not assume this will happen 100% of the time, Vernon,
Sean,
> Mike and I are doing what we can, when we have time, but this is not the
> best, or recommended way of getting things escalated!
>
> > I don't have a problem with

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Sean A Corfield]

On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:28 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
> I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
> this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
> assigning someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."

Like a "Community Manager", you mean? Hey, Vern...

> size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing List / Forum
> Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> to users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts

For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense 
to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of 
forum on a formal basis.

As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it 
helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.

An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
Architecting a New Internet Experience
Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Stacy Young]

For the love of god please do not even mention anything about a PeopleSoft
upgrade!!! Lol

Fat clients, crappy schema's and butchered code base...upgrades take days
and most often never worknot to mention we had to hire a full timer just
to baby sit and make minor modifications...on top of a yearly support plan.

PeopleSoft = absolute crap.

Sorry...OT but I really don't like them.  :-)

Stace

-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

Jesse,

--- you wrote ---

>So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working?
What if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame
then?

First ... who's been leaking that you my applications aren't working .
Second, I'm not "blaming the move to Java" - merely stating what is now a
widely accepted point of view that moving from C++ to Java as a code base,
changing the underlying architecture, moving to JDBC, greatly enhancing the
feature set, introducing flash remoting, cfcs, Java tag libraries, etc, etc,
etc, was BIG change - not an incremental one.  In fact, I'm not blaming
anyone.  I think MM has done a fine job all things considering and the
amount of compatibility between the old platform and the new is quite
amazing.

As I stated, I believe that 80% of applications will work quite well ported
from CF 5 to CFMX. I think is unrealistic to NOT expect these problems.  Did
you ever go through a peoplesoft upgrade?  Macola?  How about SQL 6.5 to
7.0?  These were all VERY challenging upgrade paths - and NONE of them moved
to an entirely different language and platform for the code base. I'm not
decrying the "lack of backward compatibility" - I'm simply trying to be
realistic.  How many of us really thought that all our pet COM objects would
be supported? I was amazed they got COM to work at all .

-mk



~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Thane Sherrington]

At 12:47 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote:

> > Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.
> >
>Sure it does if enough people are saying it.

Not really.  If a person says that function X doesn't return the expected 
value of Y when given the data Z with a server in this configuration, using 
this code, then it can get fixed.  Saying that function X sucks doesn't 
achieve anything.

T

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[S . Isaac Dealey]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


> < Let me add that I'm a CFMX believer.  All the CF projects we are doing
>> "going forward" are on CFMX. We are also excited about and actively using
>> flash remoting with cfmx.  So I'm not down on cfmx - nor do I think that
>> true backward-compatibility could be acheived for more than about 80% of
>> applications out there.  My point is, CF 5 aps that ran perfectly well
>> "may"
>> not run so well on CFMX - and the fault is with the technology path
>> (moving
>> to a Java based platform).  It's unfair to say "...well, they weren't
>> written correctly to begin with".
>>
>> Again - I mean to be friendly here, not snipish - hence the smily face :)

> So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working?
> What
> if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame
> then?

The move from C++ to C++  :)

If you continue to use the existing platform in most cases there is never
just cause to perform a complete ground-up rewrite of the codebase for a
large application ( server ) like CF, and hence, the likelyhood of a future
version of CF being a groud-up rewrite ( as MX is ) if they had stayed with
C++ as the core technology is next to nill.

If they had, however, I would have expected the first ground-up rewritten
version to be somewhat less stable than had they merely added features to
the existing codebase, because the pressures of production require them to
accomplish the entire build in roughly the same amount of time. I would
challenge anyone to perform a ground-up rewrite of an existing, wide scale,
complex, scalable enterprise software solution, to do it in the same amount
of time they would take to simply add a few features, and to have no more
problems than had they simply added a few features.

I don't believe it can be done.

In the case of CFMX I think the move to J2EE is/was a good idea and I think
it merits the transition in spite of the hurdle of troubleshooting and
relearning, etc., if only for marketing reasons because I've known many
people who've decried "ColdFusion is CRAP! because it's not Java" in the
past... Well, now they're robbed of their objection. Sure, they may produce
some other objection, but it becomes fairly obvious when they do that
they're merely holding onto an outdated and purely emotional objection to
ColdFusion which is likely based on a long held, "religeous" belief in
whatever technology they've been using for the past decade.

That being said, there are some rational objections to using CF 5 ( and
prior ) because they're not Java -- if your company is already using Java
based technologies and you're concerned about interoperability. CFMX may not
completely eliminate that concern, but it definitely softens it, which is a
great step toward continuing its growth, especially since they were able to
add support for .NET technologies over and above, which makes MX the first
application server selling arms to both sides of the Sun/MS battlefield.

Assuming that MX _mostly_ works ( and I'm pretty sure it does ), the
marketing aspects of this transition should help to ensure that it will
continue to mature and the parts that don't work will all get sorted out
soon enough. People just need to have some patience. I predict that in 2
years people will look back on this and think to themselves "thank god
that's over with", but that's just it -- it will be over with -- and
whatever attrition MM may have suffered as a result of _some_ people jumping
into MX too soon and having some of the minority horror stories, will be
more than made up for by the mass of new customers and fresh CF work in the
world.

I probably shouldn't have replied... dunno what compelled me to throw myself
onto the saw-mill. :)

S. Isaac Dealey
Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer

www.turnkey.to
954-776-0046
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Jesse Noller]

Isn't that what I said Sean? ;)

Jesse Noller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Macromedia Server Development

"No concept man forms is valid unless he
integrates it without contradiction into the
sum of his knowledge." 
- Ayn Rand

> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:48 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 08:41 US/Pacific, Jesse Noller wrote:
> > So, say you use something like, (lets pick on something easy) fusebox.
> > Fusebox
> 
> Let me jump in before people start flaming Jesse for "picking on"
> Fusebox...
> 
> > is a "methodology" for programming your CF application. Now, say you
> > have a huge application written in it, a lot of customization...
> >
> > Is it reasonable to expect every single function, line of code, etc to
> > be fully functional when an entire REWRITE of the language is done?
> >
> > No. It's not. You will run into problems, this is part of the problem
> > with allowing "any type of coding" to be utilized.
> 
> ..a concrete example in this context is the use of 'url' as a variable
> name. In CFMX, 'url' is a struct because it represents a scope (just
> like session, request etc). CF5 let you have free (unqualified)
> variables with these names - CFMX does not. It's a small change that
> tightens up the language. What it breaks is code that relies on
> *unqualified* variables called url, session, scope etc. I was told (and
> I have not been able to verify this) that an earlier version of FB used
> 'url' as an unqualified variable name.
> 
> That's the sort of thing Jesse means:
> - good practice: scope your variables and give them descriptive names
> - bad practice: reusing an existing name (a scope name) for a different
> purpose
> 
> An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
> 
> Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
> Architecting a New Internet Experience
> Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Tony Carcieri]

See below...

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:47 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


> How can we catch on when they do not contact us via the proper manner?
>
It seems participation in the community would do it.

> The way we have it now may "not be the proper" way in your eyes, but
as
> that is the *currently supported method* it doesn't leave any room for
> argument, now does it?
>
>It isn't a matter of what I personally think. It is a matter of what the
>general sentiment in the community is. It is clear to me that the
>community prefers open and public interaction with their peers over
>calling technical support and giving a credit card number. It doesn't
>matter what Macromedia's policy is in this regard if the community
>doesn't agree. People will continue to avoid the route suggested by
>Macromedia until Macromedia changes its policy to one the community
>likes better.

> Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.
>
>Sure it does if enough people are saying it.

>-Matt

I think Matt is right in stating this. For example, the voting system in
Florida (it sucked, they changed it), rights of homosexuals (let's not get
into a debate on this, please), the founding of America, abortion, women
voting, African-American rights...etc. Now what I mean by these examples, is
that "x" sucked and people changed it. Is it the same as the discussion at
hand, yes, more or less. If the community feels strongly and can make a
difference, then MM (with the help of Vern, Lee, Sean, Ben, etc) will
eventually come to change their policy.

Just my thoughts!

T


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Joe Eugene]

Great Post.. we are all supporters of CMFX and MM.. we are only want
our voices to heard by MM and communicate responsible actions taken...

Joe

- Original Message -
From: "Dave Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


> Jesse,
>
> Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent threads,
I'd
> like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
highlighting
> the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
>
> I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF
> supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of days,
to
> "go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very obvious
> problems myself - which, I am still working on solving at the moment after
3
> days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major problems lie now.
>
> Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (thats pretty obvious).
> Whilst there is also a problem with installing CFMX on a Server which had
a
> previous version of CF on it before, despite removing old registry keys
and
> directories.
>
> I believe Vernon has already picked up on these issues and is going to try
> and raise them internally with MM.
>
> I don't have a problem with MM. They're doing grand as far as I can see,
> considering their size. Maybe I'm just used to large corporate bureaucracy
> at this stage, with much much larger and slower entities (oil and
automotive
> companies). Maybe too, I have come to take the cf-talk list for granted as
> an effective channel for solving issues with CF - over the years. I've
seen
> issues raised on the list being actively tackled head on by both MM and
> Allaire in the past. Yes developers are looking for what is effectively
> "free" support - but it's support at a cost to the developer in terms of
> time etc - e.g. I've lost almost 3 days in my current situation, but at
> least I'm proactively ruling out things and feeding back my findings to
the
> people who may need that info i.e. MM or the CF Community.
>
> Just my 2c.
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 October 2002 13:48
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> All-
>
> Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address
> something that is bothering me a great deal.
>
> Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that
> Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will
> about the way MM communicates things.
>
> Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon have
> both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was
the
> fact several people basically said:
>
> "OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible
bugs
> are fixed".
>
> This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many
> people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums.
This
> is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who
> will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day are those who have
> issues.
>
> Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was
> crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?
>
> No.
>
> It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out
> because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument
> that this is far, very far, from the truth.
>
> Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the
> debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if
> you actually downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of
taking
> the "word" of the mailing lists and forums.
>
> CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of
> ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.
>
> I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being
> raised have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply
> environmental. I would also state that the only people who raise the "CFMX
> is Poop" flag are those who have hit a bug, or other issue, which is show
> stopping to *the

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Eric Dawson]

>>Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX
>>was crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make
>>it true?

I think it is fair to assume the people on this list are professional and 
they understand the implications of support issues discussed on lists like 
this. If you think for a minute that the bad "press" irrespective of issues 
with the product influence decisions you are mistaken.

I feel confident that CF5 is proven business class technology, and would 
feel comfortable deploying new and legacy applications on that platform.

CFMX is new - and I may feel comfortably deploying new applications on that 
platform. And with sufficient resources migrating existing apps to cfmx.

Don't be insulted because CFMX has problems. I think this list could have 
told you in advance there would be problems. the discussion of these 
problems is positive.

But don't insult by saying I don't have the capabilities of digesting 
information and making effective business decisions. For me, I can't afford 
to be held ransom by a developer (MM) trying to introduce an unproven 
technology.

And I like many others on this list believe in CFMX. Don't let our words get 
in the way - you are doing a good job.

Eric

From: Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:48:24 -0400

All-

Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address 
something that is bothering me a great deal.

Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations that 
Macromedia is currently examining internally, misconceptions if you will 
about the way MM communicates things.

Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean and Vernon have 
both mentioned. However, one of the things that bothered me the most was the 
fact several people basically said:

"OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of these horrible bugs 
are fixed".

This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think something many 
people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the forums. This 
is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the only people who 
will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day are those who have 
issues.

Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume that CFMX was 
crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this assumption make it true?

No.

It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even try CFMX out 
because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the argument 
that this is far, very far, from the truth.

Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it because of the 
debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be better served if 
you actually downloaded and ran your application yourself, instead of taking 
the "word" of the mailing lists and forums.

CFMX, as has been stated before, was the *most* tested version of 
ColdFusion *ever* put on market, I can't make this clear enough.

I would imagine that some of the "show stopper" issues that are being 
raised have either been addresses, will be address, or are simply 
environmental. I would also state that the only people who raise the "CFMX 
is Poop" flag are those who have hit a bug, or other issue, which is show 
stopping to *them*. Remember, hundreds of people download CFMX daily (we 
have the numbers that show this) and run it without issue.

*of COURSE* those people who run into any type of problem are immediately 
going to identify that problem as a "show stopper" and post to the mailing 
lists and the forums screaming as loud as they can to hopefully either find 
a solution or get Macromedia to help them "for free".

I can only stress that those of you reading these lists and the forums take 
everything you see with a grain of salt. Not everyone is running into these 
issues, everyone is not "throwing CFMX out the window". We have *many* 
customers running CFMX in production, under load, daily, fine.

If you install CFMX, and you run it, and you find an issue, I cannot stress 
enough that you contact support *immediately* to get that issue addressed 
ASAP.

I will not admit that the ColdFusion team (myself included) shipped "Poop". 
I will not admit to having wasted nearly two years of my life, I know this 
is *not* the case. I personally believe that the "firestorms" shown on this 
list, and the forums, are not the rule, but rather the exception to the 
rule.

Please, try it out *for yourselves* before passing judgment.


Sorry for ranting, it bothers

Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[S . Isaac Dealey]

> On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:28 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
>> I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
>> this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
>> assigning someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."

> Like a "Community Manager", you mean? Hey, Vern...

>> size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing List / Forum
>> Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
>> production who could provide a "first response" technical support
>> to users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts

> For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense
> to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of
> forum on a formal basis.

> As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it
> helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.

There's also Team Macromedia ( You know who you are. :) Who are all
professionals in the industry who work for other companies, but spend large
amounts of time contributing to the forums on Macromedia's site as
technology experts -- categorized by product of course...
http://www.macromedia.com/go/team -- this is great for both Macromedia since
they don't have to pay these people to help them out with some combination
of PR and tech support, and at the same time, it's great PR for the TeamMM
member and their company since it's basically free advertising for them.
Neil Clark has recently been helping me out with a forthcoming release of my
cms project to produce ( among other things ) a new installer which will
make it much easier to implement. His help over the past few days has been
tremendous.


S. Isaac Dealey
Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer

www.turnkey.to
954-776-0046
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Vernon Viehe]

Thanks Michael!

I was about to wave my hands and ask "What am I, chopped liver?"

Rick, maybe it was Jesse's comment including me when he said monitoring this list in 
not our fulltime job - that was (inadvertantly) not perfectly accurate regarding my 
duties, though admittedly, I do have to spread myself out amongst the various lists 
and forums for CF, as well as actually work to make progress internally on community 
issues. I also have other community responsibilities such as arranging Designer & 
Developer content, organizing Team Macromedia volunteers for ColdFusion, and other 
less visible activities that support the community.

Nevertheless, I take it as valuable criticism that you didn't realize that I'm 
supposed to be fulfilling this role, and try to act upon that (well, for the most 
part, respective of the comments Sean made regarding direct support in these venues). 

I hope my note here gives more visibility to how we can work together on those things 
which support the community.

Thanks,

Vernon Viehe
ColdFusion Community Manager
Developer Relations
Macromedia, Inc.
Online diary: http://vvmx.blogspot.com/ 

Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
Architecting a New Internet Experience
Register today at www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:57 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> 
> That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community 
> manager for MM. Of
> course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor 
> and answer
> questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility 
> comes around,
> Vernon's the guy.
> And personally, I think he's doing a great job.
> 
> 
> > I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've 
> read earlier,
> > this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists 
> might be worth
> > assigning
> > someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
> >
> > Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> > these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> > size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing 
> List / Forum
> > Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> > production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> > to users, free of charge...public relations people who are 
> not experts
> > in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> > soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> > apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> > an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
> >
> > After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter 
> then decide which
> > issues
> > should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.
> >
> > One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the 
> support one
> > can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in 
> a support
> > network.
> > Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's 
> formal support
> > requirements.
> >
> > I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
> > full-time,
> > because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.
> >
> > Would that work?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > Rick Faircloth,
> > Prism Productions
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:52 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> >
> >
> > > Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> > > misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the 
> recent threads,
> > > I'd
> > > like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> > > highlighting
> > > the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> > > "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
> >
> > Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read 
> them, degenerated
> > into a series of "throw it out the door" and "I won't be 
> buying it" etc,
> > etc, etc.
> >
> > People need to realize that yes while software might have 
> issues, and they
> > 

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

Hi, Michael.

But didn't I see in Vernon's signature line that he is "Public Relations"?
I was just wondering if MM had a formal assignment of technical
people, like those in the technical support network, whose job it is to
work with the community on lists/forums like these?

Are there any?

If it were my company, I'd have somewhere all over these lists.
Where the community gathers is where MM needs to be.

Rick


-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:57 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community manager for MM. Of
course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor and answer
questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility comes around,
Vernon's the guy.
And personally, I think he's doing a great job.


> I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
> this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
> assigning
> someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
>
> Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing List / Forum
> Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> to users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts
> in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
>
> After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter then decide which
> issues
> should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.
>
> One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the support one
> can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in a support
> network.
> Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's formal support
> requirements.
>
> I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
> full-time,
> because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.
>
> Would that work?
>
> Rick
>
> Rick Faircloth,
> Prism Productions
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:52 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> > Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> > misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent threads,
> > I'd
> > like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> > highlighting
> > the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> > "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
>
> Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read them, degenerated
> into a series of "throw it out the door" and "I won't be buying it" etc,
> etc, etc.
>
> People need to realize that yes while software might have issues, and they
> do want help publicly, there are other people who are reading these
mediums
> who are directly making decisions based off of the words of the people
> within this community.
>
> If I was a new CFMX customer, and I read the threads from the past few
> days(weeks) I would send my boxed copy back to macromedia saying "that was
> fun, no?"
>
> New users, and "on the fence" users are strongly influenced by the posts
> here and on the forums by you, the cf "luminaries".
>
> > I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF
> > supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of days,
> > to
> > "go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very obvious
> > problems myself - which, I am still working on solving at the moment
after
> > 3
> > days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major problems lie now.
>
> Except your post of "try it for yourself" was drowned out by plenty of
other
> people chanting the "MM sux and CFMX is poop" line. The fact is that the
> posts made here and elsewhere directly effect those people wanting to
"jump
> into CF"
>
> > Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (t

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Matt Liotta]

But we aren't talking about how a person can be more effective. We are
talking about a mob of people. Dealing with a mob is completely
different than dealing with a person. If a single person says some
feature sucks and has nothing else to back up that opinion then the
person will most likely be ignored. However, if a hundred people say
some feature sucks then people take notice whether or not these people
have anything to back up that claim with.

Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901

> -Original Message-
> From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:32 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> At 12:47 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote:
> 
> > > Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.
> > >
> >Sure it does if enough people are saying it.
> 
> Not really.  If a person says that function X doesn't return the
expected
> value of Y when given the data Z with a server in this configuration,
> using
> this code, then it can get fixed.  Saying that function X sucks
doesn't
> achieve anything.
> 
> T
> 
> 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

I realize that technical support is most likely a profit center for
MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)
is to a patient.  Upon first having a problem, a patient needs immediate
attention.  EMT's don't arrive on your accident scene, notice you have
serious injury and ask for credit card assurance that you can pay.
Their job is to treat as best they can and stabilize the situation.
If further treatment is required, they take you to the hospital (Technical
Support)
where more expert care can be provided, and, naturally is more costly.

I know it's not MM's policy to offer free technical support under all
circumstances,
but couldn't they on a limited "first contact" basis for forums/lists to try
to solve problems,
but if they can't, to refer the patient up the chain?

It seems reasonable for MM to be willing to spend some of its profit to
provide *some* free support to the location where the patients are showing
up.

If the lists are where they are, go there.  Don't stand in the hospital door
and
insist that all patients, under all circumstances, come to the hospital for
treatment
and credit card authorization.

>For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense
>to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of
>forum on a formal basis.

Why not?  Is there too much money to be made that would be sacrificed?

It makes perfect sense if it doesn't hurt the business too much and keeps
the users happier.  It's about cost/benefit to MM.  If MM wants to try to
diminish "firestorms", perhaps that's the way to do it.
What's it's about is providing appropriate care of customers without going
too far in doing so.
Sometimes it's good to make sacrifices to keep the community happy.

>As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it
>helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.

I'm suggesting that maybe it should be as far as can be expected on
forums/lists.

Why is this an inappropriate scenario?

Rick

A Business Owner's view--



-Original Message-----
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:28 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
> I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've read earlier,
> this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists might be worth
> assigning someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."

Like a "Community Manager", you mean? Hey, Vern...

> size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing List / Forum
> Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> to users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts

For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense
to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of
forum on a formal basis.

As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it
helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.

An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
Architecting a New Internet Experience
Register today at http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Lee Fuller]

I have to agree with Sean...

First, Jesse is a human being, just like we are.  We have thoughts,
impressions, opinions, etc.  Just because he happens to collect a
paycheck from MM doesn't negate these things, or make him a robot.

While I would expect him to curb his temper, on personal matters that
are simply off topic... I *expect* him to be passionate about his ideas
and fervent about his expression of them.

Without that.. Why not just setup an automated push-button responder and
fire all the humans?

Just my .02...



| -Original Message-
| From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:48 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
| 
| 
| On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 08:41 US/Pacific, Jesse Noller wrote:
| > So, say you use something like, (lets pick on something 
| easy) fusebox.
| > Fusebox
| 
| Let me jump in before people start flaming Jesse for "picking on" 
| Fusebox...
| 
| > is a "methodology" for programming your CF application. Now, say you
| > have a huge application written in it, a lot of customization...
| >
| > Is it reasonable to expect every single function, line of 
| code, etc to
| > be fully functional when an entire REWRITE of the language is done?
| >
| > No. It's not. You will run into problems, this is part of 
| the problem
| > with allowing "any type of coding" to be utilized.
| 
| ..a concrete example in this context is the use of 'url' as a 
| variable 
| name. In CFMX, 'url' is a struct because it represents a scope (just 
| like session, request etc). CF5 let you have free (unqualified) 
| variables with these names - CFMX does not. It's a small change that 
| tightens up the language. What it breaks is code that relies on 
| *unqualified* variables called url, session, scope etc. I was 
| told (and 
| I have not been able to verify this) that an earlier version 
| of FB used 
| 'url' as an unqualified variable name.
| 
| That's the sort of thing Jesse means:
| - good practice: scope your variables and give them descriptive names
| - bad practice: reusing an existing name (a scope name) for a 
| different 
| purpose
| 
| An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
| 
| Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida 
| Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at 
| http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002
| 
| 
| 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Lee Fuller]

Here.. Here!


| -Original Message-
| From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:15 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
| 
| 
| Great Post.. we are all supporters of CMFX and MM.. we are 
| only want our voices to heard by MM and communicate 
| responsible actions taken...
| 
| Joe
| 
| - Original Message -
| From: "Dave Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:13 AM
| Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
| 
| 
| > Jesse,
| >
| > Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a 
| > misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the recent 
| > threads,
| I'd
| > like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
| highlighting
| > the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to 
| > "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
| >
| > I have in fact advised a few people either within the "Long time CF 
| > supporter" thread and also outside of it during the last couple of 
| > days,
| to
| > "go ahead and try CFMX for themselves", despite having some very 
| > obvious problems myself - which, I am still working on 
| solving at the 
| > moment after
| 3
| > days - I believe I'm starting to see where the major 
| problems lie now.
| >
| > Basically, there's a problem with the JDBC driver (thats pretty 
| > obvious). Whilst there is also a problem with installing CFMX on a 
| > Server which had
| a
| > previous version of CF on it before, despite removing old registry 
| > keys
| and
| > directories.
| >
| > I believe Vernon has already picked up on these issues and 
| is going to 
| > try and raise them internally with MM.
| >
| > I don't have a problem with MM. They're doing grand as far as I can 
| > see, considering their size. Maybe I'm just used to large corporate 
| > bureaucracy at this stage, with much much larger and slower 
| entities 
| > (oil and
| automotive
| > companies). Maybe too, I have come to take the cf-talk list for 
| > granted as an effective channel for solving issues with CF 
| - over the 
| > years. I've
| seen
| > issues raised on the list being actively tackled head on by both MM 
| > and Allaire in the past. Yes developers are looking for what is 
| > effectively "free" support - but it's support at a cost to the 
| > developer in terms of time etc - e.g. I've lost almost 3 days in my 
| > current situation, but at least I'm proactively ruling out 
| things and 
| > feeding back my findings to
| the
| > people who may need that info i.e. MM or the CF Community.
| >
| > Just my 2c.
| > Dave
| >
| > -Original Message-
| > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| > Sent: 09 October 2002 13:48
| > To: CF-Talk
| > Subject: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
| >
| >
| > All-
| >
| > Funny, I should stop sleeping. I wanted to take a moment to address 
| > something that is bothering me a great deal.
| >
| > Out of the huge thread yesterday, there came a lot of realizations 
| > that Macromedia is currently examining internally, 
| misconceptions if 
| > you will about the way MM communicates things.
| >
| > Make no mistake, these issues are being discussed, as Sean 
| and Vernon 
| > have both mentioned. However, one of the things that 
| bothered me the 
| > most was
| the
| > fact several people basically said:
| >
| > "OH NOES! CFMX is poop! I won't buy/run it until all of 
| these horrible
| bugs
| > are fixed".
| >
| > This is what I refer too as the "Myth of Bugs". I think 
| something many 
| > people are forgetting is the scenario of a mailing list, or the 
| > forums.
| This
| > is the scenario that discourses the fact that mainly the 
| only people 
| > who will post to forums, and mailing lists in a typical day 
| are those 
| > who have issues.
| >
| > Now, if I read cf-talk on $RAND day, I could safely assume 
| that CFMX 
| > was crippled, a lame-duck to the market. Does this 
| assumption make it 
| > true?
| >
| > No.
| >
| > It bothers me to hear people say that they will not even 
| try CFMX out 
| > because there are "so many" show stopping issues. I would beg the 
| > argument that this is far, very far, from the truth.
| >
| > Those of you "dropping" CFMX or completely ignoring it 
| because of the 
| > debates/issues raised on CF-Talk and the Forums would be 
| better served 
| > if you actually downloaded and ran your appl

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

If people start to believe function X really does suck,
and they don't buy it and use it, ask the seller of function X
if it matters what people say...

R


-Original Message-
From: Thane Sherrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


At 12:47 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote:

> > Saying that "x sucks" is fine, but it does not change x.
> >
>Sure it does if enough people are saying it.

Not really.  If a person says that function X doesn't return the expected
value of Y when given the data Z with a server in this configuration, using
this code, then it can get fixed.  Saying that function X sucks doesn't
achieve anything.

T


~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Tony Carcieri]

Nah, maybe some chopped up filet mignon! ;-)

-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


Thanks Michael!

I was about to wave my hands and ask "What am I, chopped liver?"

Rick, maybe it was Jesse's comment including me when he said monitoring this
list in not our fulltime job - that was (inadvertantly) not perfectly
accurate regarding my duties, though admittedly, I do have to spread myself
out amongst the various lists and forums for CF, as well as actually work to
make progress internally on community issues. I also have other community
responsibilities such as arranging Designer & Developer content, organizing
Team Macromedia volunteers for ColdFusion, and other less visible activities
that support the community.

Nevertheless, I take it as valuable criticism that you didn't realize that
I'm supposed to be fulfilling this role, and try to act upon that (well, for
the most part, respective of the comments Sean made regarding direct support
in these venues).

I hope my note here gives more visibility to how we can work together on
those things which support the community.

Thanks,

Vernon Viehe
ColdFusion Community Manager
Developer Relations
Macromedia, Inc.
Online diary: http://vvmx.blogspot.com/

Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
Architecting a New Internet Experience
Register today at www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:57 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community
> manager for MM. Of
> course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor
> and answer
> questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility
> comes around,
> Vernon's the guy.
> And personally, I think he's doing a great job.
>
>
> > I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've
> read earlier,
> > this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists
> might be worth
> > assigning
> > someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
> >
> > Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> > these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> > size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing
> List / Forum
> > Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> > production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> > to users, free of charge...public relations people who are
> not experts
> > in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> > soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> > apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> > an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
> >
> > After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter
> then decide which
> > issues
> > should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.
> >
> > One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the
> support one
> > can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in
> a support
> > network.
> > Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's
> formal support
> > requirements.
> >
> > I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
> > full-time,
> > because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.
> >
> > Would that work?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > Rick Faircloth,
> > Prism Productions
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:52 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> >
> >
> > > Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> > > misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the
> recent threads,
> > > I'd
> > > like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> > > highlighting
> > > the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> > > "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
> >
> > Threads like the one yesterday, if you go back and read
> them, degenerated
> > into a series of "t

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

Thanks for the clarification, Vernon.

It is helpful to know that monitoring the lists/forums is part of your
formal job.
(Perhaps you should include something to alude to that in your signature
block
for those just joining the list...so we can know who the "players" are?)

My suggestion concerns more about the responsibilities of the people MM
assigns to interact with the community.  I would definitely have someone
like
yourself, who specializes (I assume by your title) in "managing the
community."
Your primary job, I assume again, is not to troubleshoot programming or
server issues,
but to keep tabs on what's happening in the community, provide general
guidance, etc.

I didn't mean to downplay your significance, but was wondering if it would
be helpful
for MM to include a "partner" for you whose job it would be to troubleshoot
programming
and server issues...the technical side of things as a formal "day job",
"first response",
technician.

I've used other products, such as Adobe's Premiere, and usually, you
couldn't tell if there
was anyone from Adobe who ever read the forums.  They purposefully stayed
hidden.
And that was on Adobe's own forums...it was frustrating.

Is assigning technicians to partner with you no appropriate or reasonable?

btw, no, you're not chopped liver...I'm sorry if I insulted you...I didn't
mean to.
I was just assuming your role (and perhaps technical capabilities to deal
with issues)
*might* not be as great as those in the technical support department, at
least not *officially*.  :o)

Rick


-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


Thanks Michael!

I was about to wave my hands and ask "What am I, chopped liver?"

Rick, maybe it was Jesse's comment including me when he said monitoring this
list in not our fulltime job - that was (inadvertantly) not perfectly
accurate regarding my duties, though admittedly, I do have to spread myself
out amongst the various lists and forums for CF, as well as actually work to
make progress internally on community issues. I also have other community
responsibilities such as arranging Designer & Developer content, organizing
Team Macromedia volunteers for ColdFusion, and other less visible activities
that support the community.

Nevertheless, I take it as valuable criticism that you didn't realize that
I'm supposed to be fulfilling this role, and try to act upon that (well, for
the most part, respective of the comments Sean made regarding direct support
in these venues).

I hope my note here gives more visibility to how we can work together on
those things which support the community.

Thanks,

Vernon Viehe
ColdFusion Community Manager
Developer Relations
Macromedia, Inc.
Online diary: http://vvmx.blogspot.com/

Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
Architecting a New Internet Experience
Register today at www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:57 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community
> manager for MM. Of
> course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor
> and answer
> questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility
> comes around,
> Vernon's the guy.
> And personally, I think he's doing a great job.
>
>
> > I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've
> read earlier,
> > this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists
> might be worth
> > assigning
> > someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
> >
> > Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> > these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> > size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing
> List / Forum
> > Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> > production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> > to users, free of charge...public relations people who are
> not experts
> > in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> > soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> > apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> > an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
> >
> > After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter
> then decide which
> > issues
> > should be taken into the formal chain of techn

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rob Rohan]

Also, if one believes in something one is often passionate about it.

I think the fact that the MM guys are so passionate about their products
goes to show that they very much believe in what they are doing. Like an
artist with their painting. If they were robot like - like ... aheM (I Cant
Recall) ... sOme other SOFTware companies - I sure wouldn't trust them much.


-Original Message-
From: Lee Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


I have to agree with Sean...

First, Jesse is a human being, just like we are.  We have thoughts,
impressions, opinions, etc.  Just because he happens to collect a
paycheck from MM doesn't negate these things, or make him a robot.

While I would expect him to curb his temper, on personal matters that
are simply off topic... I *expect* him to be passionate about his ideas
and fervent about his expression of them.

Without that.. Why not just setup an automated push-button responder and
fire all the humans?

Just my .02...



| -Original Message-
| From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:48 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
|
|
| On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 08:41 US/Pacific, Jesse Noller wrote:
| > So, say you use something like, (lets pick on something
| easy) fusebox.
| > Fusebox
|
| Let me jump in before people start flaming Jesse for "picking on"
| Fusebox...
|
| > is a "methodology" for programming your CF application. Now, say you
| > have a huge application written in it, a lot of customization...
| >
| > Is it reasonable to expect every single function, line of
| code, etc to
| > be fully functional when an entire REWRITE of the language is done?
| >
| > No. It's not. You will run into problems, this is part of
| the problem
| > with allowing "any type of coding" to be utilized.
|
| ..a concrete example in this context is the use of 'url' as a
| variable
| name. In CFMX, 'url' is a struct because it represents a scope (just
| like session, request etc). CF5 let you have free (unqualified)
| variables with these names - CFMX does not. It's a small change that
| tightens up the language. What it breaks is code that relies on
| *unqualified* variables called url, session, scope etc. I was
| told (and
| I have not been able to verify this) that an earlier version
| of FB used
| 'url' as an unqualified variable name.
|
| That's the sort of thing Jesse means:
| - good practice: scope your variables and give them descriptive names
| - bad practice: reusing an existing name (a scope name) for a
| different
| purpose
|
| An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
|
| Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida
| Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at
| http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002
|
|
|

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[todd]

No offense Rick, but... I don't think there's enough coders / emergency 
tech response in the world to even handle something like this.  Why?  
Because anyone and everyone will all declare their problems as 
'emergencies' and no one will "RTFM."

There is a _a lot_ that the 'customers' could be doing, but won't do 
because they have no time.  No time because either the project deadline is 
unreasonable (as it always is the case because, I've yet to see a VP that 
actually requested something reasonable... in fact, I think whatever 
school they all pop out of, one of the classes is "Overwork your workers 
101" or something stupid).

What I mean by could be doing is that ... again, this is just what I 
consider common sense to me:

1.) Find the "ROOT" of your problem.  Don't just stand there, throw hands 
up in the air and said, "Jee, don't work, duh!"

2.) Once the root has been found, ping the communities ala "Anyone else 
having this problem?"

3.) If the answer to #2 is no, this might mean you're a unique case, which 
sucks because you're going to have to dig a little harder.  Document what 
your thoughts are "Well, I thought it was this, but turns out that it's 
not because that is working," etc.

Probably the most important step involved in all of these steps is that 
.. documentation.  Document what your problem is.  Document what the 
communities have been saying, Document what you have found so far.  Once  
you've done that, call up Macromedia Tech Support and say, look, this is 
my findings so far.  Send emails back and forth, show the work.  If you 
document everything, then you can truly say, "Look, 100 of us all have the 
same problem, what more proof do you need?"  If you don't get an answer, 
then... there's a problem.  If the answer is 'next updater will take care 
of this', then you have a decision to make.  In some cases, it could be 
that MM never thought of that problem and ... by damn, you're a genius.  
In other cases, MM thought of it, but ... perhaps there's not enough 
screaming for it.  

Who knows...  I do agree that communicate needs to improve, but I don't 
think Macromedia is the only guilty party involved.

Just my opinion,
~Todd


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Rick Faircloth wrote:

> I realize that technical support is most likely a profit center for
> MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)
> is to a patient.  Upon first having a problem, a patient needs immediate
> attention.  EMT's don't arrive on your accident scene, notice you have
> serious injury and ask for credit card assurance that you can pay.
> Their job is to treat as best they can and stabilize the situation.
> If further treatment is required, they take you to the hospital (Technical
> Support)
> where more expert care can be provided, and, naturally is more costly.
> 
> I know it's not MM's policy to offer free technical support under all
> circumstances,
> but couldn't they on a limited "first contact" basis for forums/lists to try
> to solve problems,
> but if they can't, to refer the patient up the chain?
> 
> It seems reasonable for MM to be willing to spend some of its profit to
> provide *some* free support to the location where the patients are showing
> up.
> 
> If the lists are where they are, go there.  Don't stand in the hospital door
> and
> insist that all patients, under all circumstances, come to the hospital for
> treatment
> and credit card authorization.
> 
> >For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense
> >to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of
> >forum on a formal basis.
> 
> Why not?  Is there too much money to be made that would be sacrificed?
> 
> It makes perfect sense if it doesn't hurt the business too much and keeps
> the users happier.  It's about cost/benefit to MM.  If MM wants to try to
> diminish "firestorms", perhaps that's the way to do it.
> What's it's about is providing appropriate care of customers without going
> too far in doing so.
> Sometimes it's good to make sacrifices to keep the community happy.
> 
> >As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it
> >helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.
> 
> I'm suggesting that maybe it should be as far as can be expected on
> forums/lists.
> 
> Why is this an inappropriate scenario?
> 
> Rick
> 
> A Business Owner's view--
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Mark A. Kruger - CFG]

hehe ... I agree - makes MM's release of CFMX seem flawless.

-Original Message-
From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


For the love of god please do not even mention anything about a PeopleSoft
upgrade!!! Lol

Fat clients, crappy schema's and butchered code base...upgrades take days
and most often never worknot to mention we had to hire a full timer just
to baby sit and make minor modifications...on top of a yearly support plan.

PeopleSoft = absolute crap.

Sorry...OT but I really don't like them.  :-)

Stace

-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

Jesse,

--- you wrote ---

>So you're blaming the move to Java for your application(s) not working?
What if he had simply rewritten the code base in C++? What would you blame
then?

First ... who's been leaking that you my applications aren't working .
Second, I'm not "blaming the move to Java" - merely stating what is now a
widely accepted point of view that moving from C++ to Java as a code base,
changing the underlying architecture, moving to JDBC, greatly enhancing the
feature set, introducing flash remoting, cfcs, Java tag libraries, etc, etc,
etc, was BIG change - not an incremental one.  In fact, I'm not blaming
anyone.  I think MM has done a fine job all things considering and the
amount of compatibility between the old platform and the new is quite
amazing.

As I stated, I believe that 80% of applications will work quite well ported
from CF 5 to CFMX. I think is unrealistic to NOT expect these problems.  Did
you ever go through a peoplesoft upgrade?  Macola?  How about SQL 6.5 to
7.0?  These were all VERY challenging upgrade paths - and NONE of them moved
to an entirely different language and platform for the code base. I'm not
decrying the "lack of backward compatibility" - I'm simply trying to be
realistic.  How many of us really thought that all our pet COM objects would
be supported? I was amazed they got COM to work at all .

-mk




~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Lee Fuller]

That's called "Gold Support".

| -Original Message-
| From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:10 PM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
| 
| 
| I realize that technical support is most likely a profit 
| center for MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT 
| (Emergency Medical Technician) is to a patient.  Upon first 
| having a problem, a patient needs immediate attention.  EMT's 
| don't arrive on your accident scene, notice you have serious 
| injury and ask for credit card assurance that you can pay. 
| Their job is to treat as best they can and stabilize the 
| situation. If further treatment is required, they take you to 
| the hospital (Technical
| Support)
| where more expert care can be provided, and, naturally is more costly.
| 
| I know it's not MM's policy to offer free technical support 
| under all circumstances, but couldn't they on a limited 
| "first contact" basis for forums/lists to try to solve 
| problems, but if they can't, to refer the patient up the chain?
| 
| It seems reasonable for MM to be willing to spend some of its 
| profit to provide *some* free support to the location where 
| the patients are showing up.
| 
| If the lists are where they are, go there.  Don't stand in 
| the hospital door and insist that all patients, under all 
| circumstances, come to the hospital for treatment and credit 
| card authorization.
| 
| >For a company that charges for technical support, it makes 
| little sense 
| >to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of 
| >forum on a formal basis.
| 
| Why not?  Is there too much money to be made that would be sacrificed?
| 
| It makes perfect sense if it doesn't hurt the business too 
| much and keeps the users happier.  It's about cost/benefit to 
| MM.  If MM wants to try to diminish "firestorms", perhaps 
| that's the way to do it. What's it's about is providing 
| appropriate care of customers without going too far in doing 
| so. Sometimes it's good to make sacrifices to keep the 
| community happy.
| 
| >As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it 
| >helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.
| 
| I'm suggesting that maybe it should be as far as can be 
| expected on forums/lists.
| 
| Why is this an inappropriate scenario?
| 
| Rick
| 
| A Business Owner's view--
| 
| 
| 
| -Original Message-----
| From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:12 PM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
| 
| 
| On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:28 US/Pacific, Rick Faircloth wrote:
| > I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've 
| read earlier, 
| > this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists 
| might be worth 
| > assigning someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
| 
| Like a "Community Manager", you mean? Hey, Vern...
| 
| > size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing 
| List / Forum 
| > Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in 
| > production who could provide a "first response" technical 
| support to 
| > users, free of charge...public relations people who are not experts
| 
| For a company that charges for technical support, it makes 
| little sense to then provide *free* technical support through 
| a mailing list of forum on a formal basis.
| 
| As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here 
| because it helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide 
| free support.
| 
| An Architect's View -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
| 
| Macromedia DevCon 2002, October 27-30, Orlando, Florida 
| Architecting a New Internet Experience Register today at 
| http://www.macromedia.com/go/devcon2002
| 
| 
| 
| 
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Mosh Teitelbaum]

Rick Faircloth wrote:
> I realize that technical support is most likely a profit center for
> MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)
> is to a patient.  Upon first having a problem, a patient needs immediate
> attention.  EMT's don't arrive on your accident scene, notice you have
> serious injury and ask for credit card assurance that you can pay.
> Their job is to treat as best they can and stabilize the situation.
> If further treatment is required, they take you to the hospital (Technical
> Support) where more expert care can be provided, and, naturally is more
costly.

EMTs do not provide service free of charge.  They just don't get paid
directly by the person in need of assistance.  EMTs get paid via your tax
dollars and donations.  A more complete analogy would have MM charging you
an annual fee (like taxes) for this EMT-like service.  This is typically
called a Support Contract.

> It seems reasonable for MM to be willing to spend some of its profit to
> provide *some* free support to the location where the patients are showing
> up.

MM is providing plenty of free support.  They have a website with tons of
documentation (granted it needs some work, but we've already heard that it's
being upgraded), they provide the resources to maintain a CF Community focal
point on their servers, etc.  They just don't offer the kind of free service
that you're looking for.  But there's likely a reason for that; to provide
emergency support services for free would likely bankrupt them.

> >For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense
> >to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of
> >forum on a formal basis.
>
> Why not?  Is there too much money to be made that would be sacrificed?

Apparently, you'd be amazed at how much money there is to be made in
provided customer support.  Also, there are plenty of software companies (so
far as I remember reading) that would not break even, let alone turn a
profit, were it not for tech support.

> >As it is, several of us at MM provide free support here because it
> >helps. It isn't Macromedia's policy to provide free support.
>
> I'm suggesting that maybe it should be as far as can be expected on
> forums/lists.
>
> Why is this an inappropriate scenario?

Because, as a company, MM needs to be profitable.  As a business owner, I'm
sure you can understand.  Providing free support, even if "only" in the form
of having one or more full-time employees covering the forums is expensive.

When I first started programming professionally, one of my additional
responsibilities was to act as the public frontman for the user community
(covering mailing lists, newsgroups, website forums, etc.).  It soon became
apparent that I couldn't handle my programming responsibilities *AND* be the
frontman.  There's just too much time that has to go into providing support
like that.  Especially for as complex a product, with as large a user base,
as Cold Fusion enjoys.

Anyway, hats off to MM and all the MM guys here on the list.  And with
that... back to (prolly) not responding to this thread.

--
Mosh Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 625-9191
Fax: (301) 933-3651
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Vernon Viehe]

Hey Rick,

Actually, my signature says Developer Relations, not Public Relations. Public 
Relations is a different group. But I often conveniently tell my friends I work in 
Technical PR, so I'm not saying you're completely off-base.

But, my job goes beyond that, from voicing your expressed concerns internally, to 
reporting back to you, in addition to other community stuff (touched upon in another 
message). Many in our group, including me, were part of Technical Support before 
organizational changes, and have worked as technical support engineers. I admit, I'm 
no Ben Forta, but that's why I have several of Macromedia's technical gurus (like 
Sean) out here with me, including the occasional visit by Ben himself.

I'm still hoping for that brain-dump thing-a-majigg (v 1.1), so I can be an "instant" 
Ben Forta!

-Vern

> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> 
> Hi, Michael.
> 
> But didn't I see in Vernon's signature line that he is 
> "Public Relations"?
> I was just wondering if MM had a formal assignment of technical
> people, like those in the technical support network, whose 
> job it is to
> work with the community on lists/forums like these?
> 
> Are there any?
> 
> If it were my company, I'd have somewhere all over these lists.
> Where the community gathers is where MM needs to be.
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:57 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> 
> 
> That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community 
> manager for MM. Of
> course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor 
> and answer
> questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility 
> comes around,
> Vernon's the guy.
> And personally, I think he's doing a great job.
> 
> 
> > I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've 
> read earlier,
> > this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists 
> might be worth
> > assigning
> > someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
> >
> > Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> > these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> > size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing 
> List / Forum
> > Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> > production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> > to users, free of charge...public relations people who are 
> not experts
> > in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> > soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> > apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> > an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
> >
> > After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter 
> then decide which
> > issues
> > should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.
> >
> > One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the 
> support one
> > can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in 
> a support
> > network.
> > Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's 
> formal support
> > requirements.
> >
> > I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
> > full-time,
> > because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.
> >
> > Would that work?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > Rick Faircloth,
> > Prism Productions
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:52 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
> >
> >
> > > Whilst I agree with your general point that there's possibly a
> > > misintepretation of "doom and gloom for CFMX" within the 
> recent threads,
> > > I'd
> > > like to also point out that from what I can see, the developers
> > > highlighting
> > > the problems are actually seeking help from Macromedia in order to
> > > "continue" using CFMX - NOT in order to give up on it altogether.
> >
> > Threads like the one yesterda

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Mosh Teitelbaum]

Lee Fuller wrote:
> I have to agree with Sean...
> 
> First, Jesse is a human being, just like we are.  We have thoughts,
> impressions, opinions, etc.  Just because he happens to collect a
> paycheck from MM doesn't negate these things, or make him a robot.
> 
> While I would expect him to curb his temper, on personal matters that
> are simply off topic... I *expect* him to be passionate about his ideas
> and fervent about his expression of them.
> 
> Without that.. Why not just setup an automated push-button responder and
> fire all the humans?
> 
> Just my .02...

Auto-response 1936782047

--
Mosh Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 625-9191
Fax: (301) 933-3651
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Lee Fuller]

LOL

| Auto-response 1936782047



~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
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: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

Sorry about the title error...

As several have pointed out, I'm sure it would require too many resources
to cover all the list/forums out there, but I wonder about technical
coverage
of the official MM forums?  I visited there today and found some messages
had gone several days with no responses.

I'm sure, too, that having tech support on the open forums would create
havoc
with everyone flooding in their requests for the "free" help and overwhelm
the poor techs.

I don't have any experience with handling technical support at this level,
so I'll just shut up while I'm behind... ;o)

Rick

PS - Keep us posted on the "Insta-Ben"...



-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


Hey Rick,

Actually, my signature says Developer Relations, not Public Relations.
Public Relations is a different group. But I often conveniently tell my
friends I work in Technical PR, so I'm not saying you're completely
off-base.

But, my job goes beyond that, from voicing your expressed concerns
internally, to reporting back to you, in addition to other community stuff
(touched upon in another message). Many in our group, including me, were
part of Technical Support before organizational changes, and have worked as
technical support engineers. I admit, I'm no Ben Forta, but that's why I
have several of Macromedia's technical gurus (like Sean) out here with me,
including the occasional visit by Ben himself.

I'm still hoping for that brain-dump thing-a-majigg (v 1.1), so I can be an
"instant" Ben Forta!

-Vern

> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> Hi, Michael.
>
> But didn't I see in Vernon's signature line that he is
> "Public Relations"?
> I was just wondering if MM had a formal assignment of technical
> people, like those in the technical support network, whose
> job it is to
> work with the community on lists/forums like these?
>
> Are there any?
>
> If it were my company, I'd have somewhere all over these lists.
> Where the community gathers is where MM needs to be.
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:57 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)
>
>
> That person is Vernon, basically. He's the CF community
> manager for MM. Of
> course, there are others from MM on the list that do monitor
> and answer
> questions such as Sean, but when the internal responsibility
> comes around,
> Vernon's the guy.
> And personally, I think he's doing a great job.
>
>
> > I've just been monitoring the thread, but from what I've
> read earlier,
> > this and maybe other CF-lists and other software lists
> might be worth
> > assigning
> > someone to, to monitor and respond to as their "day job."
> >
> > Public relations and perception can make or break a company
> > these days and it seems to me, especially with a company the
> > size of MM, that there would be funds to hire a "Mailing
> List / Forum
> > Troubleshooter" who is an expert in the software AND its use in
> > production who could provide a "first response" technical support
> > to users, free of charge...public relations people who are
> not experts
> > in the software and its use are really not always helpful, except to
> > soothe the frayed nerves of customers whose businesses are falling
> > apart because they can't get things working.  And sometimes you need
> > an answer in minutes, not hours or days.
> >
> > After providing "first response", let the Troubleshooter
> then decide which
> > issues
> > should be taken into the formal chain of technical support.
> >
> > One of the great benefits of public lists like this and the
> support one
> > can get is that the support is "public" and not isolated in
> a support
> > network.
> > Solve it for one, you solve it for many.  Cuts down on MM's
> formal support
> > requirements.
> >
> > I believe this "Troubleshooter" position should be formal, paid, and
> > full-time,
> > because it's in MM's and the CF (et al) community's best interest.
> >
> > Would that work?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > Rick Faircloth,
> > Pris

RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)

[Rick Faircloth]

>No offense Rick, but... I don't think there's enough coders / emergency
>tech response in the world to even handle something like this.  Why?
>Because anyone and everyone will all declare their problems as
>'emergencies' and no one will "RTFM."

I'm sure you're right...

Rick


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The Myth of Bugs (Was Huge Ungainly thread of Doom)


No offense Rick, but... I don't think there's enough coders / emergency
tech response in the world to even handle something like this.  Why?
Because anyone and everyone will all declare their problems as
'emergencies' and no one will "RTFM."

There is a _a lot_ that the 'customers' could be doing, but won't do
because they have no time.  No time because either the project deadline is
unreasonable (as it always is the case because, I've yet to see a VP that
actually requested something reasonable... in fact, I think whatever
school they all pop out of, one of the classes is "Overwork your workers
101" or something stupid).

What I mean by could be doing is that ... again, this is just what I
consider common sense to me:

1.) Find the "ROOT" of your problem.  Don't just stand there, throw hands
up in the air and said, "Jee, don't work, duh!"

2.) Once the root has been found, ping the communities ala "Anyone else
having this problem?"

3.) If the answer to #2 is no, this might mean you're a unique case, which
sucks because you're going to have to dig a little harder.  Document what
your thoughts are "Well, I thought it was this, but turns out that it's
not because that is working," etc.

Probably the most important step involved in all of these steps is that
. documentation.  Document what your problem is.  Document what the
communities have been saying, Document what you have found so far.  Once
you've done that, call up Macromedia Tech Support and say, look, this is
my findings so far.  Send emails back and forth, show the work.  If you
document everything, then you can truly say, "Look, 100 of us all have the
same problem, what more proof do you need?"  If you don't get an answer,
then... there's a problem.  If the answer is 'next updater will take care
of this', then you have a decision to make.  In some cases, it could be
that MM never thought of that problem and ... by damn, you're a genius.
In other cases, MM thought of it, but ... perhaps there's not enough
screaming for it.

Who knows...  I do agree that communicate needs to improve, but I don't
think Macromedia is the only guilty party involved.

Just my opinion,
~Todd


On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Rick Faircloth wrote:

> I realize that technical support is most likely a profit center for
> MM, but what I'm proposing is what an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician)
> is to a patient.  Upon first having a problem, a patient needs immediate
> attention.  EMT's don't arrive on your accident scene, notice you have
> serious injury and ask for credit card assurance that you can pay.
> Their job is to treat as best they can and stabilize the situation.
> If further treatment is required, they take you to the hospital (Technical
> Support)
> where more expert care can be provided, and, naturally is more costly.
>
> I know it's not MM's policy to offer free technical support under all
> circumstances,
> but couldn't they on a limited "first contact" basis for forums/lists to
try
> to solve problems,
> but if they can't, to refer the patient up the chain?
>
> It seems reasonable for MM to be willing to spend some of its profit to
> provide *some* free support to the location where the patients are showing
> up.
>
> If the lists are where they are, go there.  Don't stand in the hospital
door
> and
> insist that all patients, under all circumstances, come to the hospital
for
> treatment
> and credit card authorization.
>
> >For a company that charges for technical support, it makes little sense
> >to then provide *free* technical support through a mailing list of
> >forum on a formal basis.
>
> Why not?  Is there too much money to be made that would be sacrificed?
>
> It makes perfect sense if it doesn't hurt the business too much and keeps
> the users happier.  It's about cost/benefit to MM.  If MM wants to try to
> diminish "firestorms", perhaps that's the way to do it.
> What's it's about is providing appropriate care of customers without going
> too far in doing so.
> Sometimes it's good to make sacrifices to keep the community happy.
>
> >As it is,