The Dev edition in CF5 only allowed the local machine to connect, so the extra IP
address was a step in this direction on CFMX.
But I'd be interested to know how many folks feel strongly about this, so I can pass
it along.
-Vern
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL P
annoyance. The extra IP is nice but fixing that annoyance would be even
nicer.
Ken
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
The Dev edition in
Cranking it up to 5 would be perfect for me...
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
The Dev edition in CF5 only allowed the local
Vern
Real life situation.
I am doing a remote phone demo (Phone CFMX?) tomorrow to a potential
client (me, in Calif & he, in his Park Avenue office)..
I will use my TiBook, 1 GIG RAM, 800MHz, running:
CFMX Developer Linux ported to Mac OS X
Sybase ASE Developer (Native Mac OS X) (l
s that require clients or customers to purchase CF
server), shouldn't we get some leeway in our own copies of CF?
NAT
> -Original Message-
> From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:22 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX De
annoyance. The extra IP is nice but fixing that annoyance would
> be even
> nicer.
>
> Ken
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:54 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edit
Why?
On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 06:22 PM, Stacy Young wrote:
> Cranking it up to 5 would be perfect for me...
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:54 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
>
>
> The Dev edition in CF5 only allowed the local machine to
> connect, so the extra IP address was a step in this direction on CFMX.
>
> But I
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Why?
On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 06:22 PM, Stacy Young wrote:
> Cranking it up to 5 would be perfect for me...
~|
Archives: h
t;> From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:54 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
>>
>>
>> The Dev edition in CF5 only allowed the local machine to
>> connect,
Jeeze, that's a good answer -- wish I'd thought of that!
This is very subtle, you are demonstrating volumes about CF, your
application and yourself, by being able to do this.
You can't buy that kind of PR!
You can sum up this walk through with:
"Gentlemen, this was not a simulation -- that's
06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Jeeze, that's a good answer -- wish I'd thought of that!
This is very subtle, you are demonstrating volumes about CF, your
application and yourself, by being able to do this.
You can't buy that
hat was not intending on purchasing a
>full license anyway...
>
>Stace
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:06 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
ber 16, 2002 10:06 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
>
> Jeeze, that's a good answer -- wish I'd thought of that!
>
> This is very subtle, you are demonstrating volumes about CF, your
> application and yourself, by being ab
ion site with that was not intending on
>> purchasing a
>> full license anyway...
>>
>> Stace
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:06 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>>
nd remove the additional IP address from the
license.properties file? Ain't that true?
Jb.
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 October 2002 03:44
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Mmmm...
Th
I was pretty sure the localhost + 1 IP was in CF5.
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 October 2002 01:54
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
The Dev edition in CF5 only allowed the local machine to
> I would like to see it expanded to 3 or 5 -- anything that would allow
If it's a problem, just set-up a proxy server for everyone who wishes to use
the server to go through to get to it, so that everyone appears to be using
one IP.
Tom Chiverton
You don't have to be a mad scientist to believe
CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
> I would like to see it expanded to 3 or 5 -- anything that would allow
If it's a problem, just set-up a proxy server for everyone who wishes to use
the server to go through to get to it, so that everyone appears to be using
one IP.
Tom
go in and remove the additional IP address from the
> license.properties file? Ain't that true?
>
> Jb.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 17 October 2002 03:44
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish
> erm, isnt that against the licensing?
No idea. Running the first demo's of MX in post-trial single IP mode to
develop on was against it too.
> effectively Macromedia wouldn't have
> any sales!
The client would go and buy the full version of course, we're talking about
internal demo's here, ar
LOL ;-p
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 October 2002 10:50
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
> erm, isnt that against the licensing?
No idea. Running the first demo's of MX in post-tria
> By the way, I'm not schizophrenic, so there's no need for the "royal we".
schizophrenia isn't multiple-personality disorder, its means dave took a
vacation from reality which doesn't appear to be the case here--i perhaps
wouldn't say the same for folks who think mm is some kind of funky charity
> > I'm kind of surprised by this request. I don't work
> > for Macromedia,
>
> Yes, but we will admit, won't we, that Fig Leaf has
> historically had rather a 'special' relationship with
> Allaire/Macromedia...
I like to think it's "special", but that's more a matter of sentiment than
anythin
> I disagree. Purchasing Enterprise licenses for
> developers is not a viable option.
I wasn't suggesting that you buy an Enterprise license for each developer,
just that you might buy one license for a shared development server, and
have as many developers as you want using that server for devel
Vernon Viehe wrote:
> For ongoing development needs, purchasing a licensed development
> server currently is part of setting up shop, like purchasing the
> development server hardware. I haven't seen any calls for free
> development hardware, but if those companies start to give away
> free develop
y) rediscovered the value of profit?
Hal Helms
"Java for CF Programmers" class immediately
after Macromedia DevCon.
Info at www.halhelms.com
-Original Message-
From: Greg Bullough [mailto:gwb@;outofchaos.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject:
At 09:19 PM 10/17/02 -0400, Vernon Viehe wrote:
>I don't see where we're raising the cost of entry, we actually dropped the
>price of Pro alot.
You're raising the cost of entry by differentiating the Enterprise and Pro
editions
along the lines of a basic programming construct (specifically, JSP
ow on, please stop this thread on CF-TALK, the topic is related to
CF-PARTNERS.
Thanks.
Benoit Hediard
www.benorama.com
-Message d'origine-
De : Greg Bullough [mailto:gwb@;outofchaos.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2002 13:42
À : CF-Talk
Objet : RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish wa
ns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Distance Education Division
-Original Message-
From: Hal Helms [mailto:hal.helms@;teamallaire.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
It's fine to disagr
Oops, I posted this to the wrong thread.
I started this thread, and maybe I should end it.
I posted it here, because I thought it applied to individual CF
developers -- whether part of a large organizations or one-person shops.
I also thought , that because of the members of the CF-Talk list,
Uhm.. Does that mean I have to sell my stock in that Chinese
pharmaceutical company now?? DAMN!
;)
| I've heard that they execute political prisoners and harvest
| their organs for sale in China, but that doesn't mean it's
| acceptable behavior, I hope.
~~~
Will you move into my offices, Vernon?? ;)
| -Original Message-
| From: Vernon Viehe [mailto:vviehe@;macromedia.com]
| Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:38 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
|
|
| Dave's pretty much right-on
to see some of thoses numbers.
-mk
-Original Message-
From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:adrocknatalk@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Btw. Everyone I know who are avid Studio users, also own copi
> You're raising the cost of entry by differentiating the
> Enterprise and Pro editions along the lines of a basic
> programming construct (specifically, JSP tags) for the
> first time in the history of the product.
I don't think this is an accurate characterization. JSP tags are not a basic
pro
Perhaps the IP's could be limited to sanctioned non-external IP's?
192.168.x.x - etc
-
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
No - it might be the only stock right now with potential... with a long
life... a long "liver" so to speak .
-Original Message-
From: Lee Fuller [mailto:leelistnew@;primedna.net]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 11:24 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was
really
wouldn't impact MM.
-Novak
- Original Message -
From: "Jeffry Houser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
> Naah, th
Original Message-
>From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:22 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
>
>
>Oops, I posted this to the wrong thread.
>
>I started this thread, and
It really doesn't matter what the external IP addresses are --
The fact that the "CF Application Server" would need to be recycled
after hits from the 5th unique IP makes it unsuitable for any kind of
production use (be it by developers or end users).
The way Macromedia has implemented this for
k Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:22 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
>
>
>Oops, I posted this to the wrong thread.
>
>I started this thread, and maybe I should end it.
>
>I p
unless, of course, it was a 3 person network.
-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
It really doesn't matter what the extern
er
Macromedia, Inc.
--
Macromedia Certified Professional
CF blog at http://vvmx.blogspot.com
-Original Message-
From: Greg Bullough [mailto:gwb@;outofchaos.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish
m: Dick Applebaum [mailto:dicklacara@;mac.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:00 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
>
>
> It really doesn't matter what the external IP addresses are --
>
> The fact that the "CF Application Serv
There, that should work.
If everyone had honor, there would be no need for lawyers.
>:wq
>
>:)
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:jeff@;farcryfly.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:38 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Editio
45 matches
Mail list logo
