It's been 10 years. Some of my memory is fuzzy. :)
Regardless, Adobe didn't kill off Spectra, so it's hard to fault them for
that.
Scott
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Raymond Camden wrote:
>
> Spectra did sell well. I don't have the sales #s but it was a good
> seller - especially in Europ
I have created a few video's to highlight some of these problems if anyone
is interested. Also I did a video on another problem I had with migrating
over to ColdFusion 9 as per a blog post I wrote. I did this video because I
got a bit of flak on that post, because one person in particular commente
ColdFusion has been around for over 15 years and has survived two corporate
takeovers. That is a remarkable accomplishment considering how many other
products and technologies have not survived. ColdFusion must be doing
something right. I usually mention this point when asked about the future of
t
> So I'll say again that we must agree to disagree here sir. It's clear I'm
> not swaying you in any way. And it seems clear you think I'm a fool. The
> beauty of HOF is that's it's made of so many opinionated people.
I don't think you're a fool, I just disagree with you on this specific
issue. B
Yeah, it was Macromedia
MD
On 29 Jan 2011, at 14:59, Raymond Camden wrote:
>
> Spectra did sell well. I don't have the sales #s but it was a good
> seller - especially in Europe I believe. Allaire did not cancel it -
> Macromedia did.
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Scott Brady wrote:
Spectra did sell well. I don't have the sales #s but it was a good
seller - especially in Europe I believe. Allaire did not cancel it -
Macromedia did.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Scott Brady wrote:
>
> To be fair to Adobe, two of the products you mentioned they killed off were
> a result o
You should see me dance.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Jeffrey Battershall wrote:
>
> I, for one, would like to acknowledge you for the entertainment value you
> bring to this list. Thank you.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > "I know so mu
I, for one, would like to acknowledge you for the entertainment value you
bring to this list. Thank you.
Jeff
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> >
> > "I know so much about marketing from my experience with small/midtier
> > companies in completely different lines of bus
>
> "I know so much about marketing from my experience with small/midtier
> companies in completely different lines of business that I can
> accurately make a cost-benefit analysis without any background
> information other than my own wild-ass guesses."
>
Well yours is certainly more jaded and m
Damn Den. I love reading your posts. Thanks for the morning giggle.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM, denstar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
> >
> > I can sleep, no worries mate.
>
> The strength of your opinion belies that statement. You know you lie
> awake
To be fair to Adobe, two of the products you mentioned they killed off were
a result of the Macromedia purchase which led to them having duplicate
products (Dreamweaver vs. GoLive, Freehand vs. Illustrator, Fireworks vs.
ImageReady, etc.), so it made sense from a business standpoint to kill one
of
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> I can sleep, no worries mate.
The strength of your opinion belies that statement. You know you lie
awake at night, tossing and turning over this in agony. Admit it. =)
...
> I feel masking the use of php on any CF branded Adobe pages (N
> I do wonder though why do so many of you seem to take the tack that if a
> company does (or doesn't do) something that it's both a) a fully thought out
> and analyzed decision and b) the right one.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think I mentioned a "master plan". What I
did mention, was that they ha
gt; because part of Adobe's site is not in CF.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
> Sent: 28 January 2011 23:43
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> Am I in bizarro land? No one can see an a
o: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Am I in bizarro land? No one can see an advantage to (as others have stated)
eating your own dog food?
Before you know it Steve Jobs will be telling me to use Windows.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Russ Michaels wrote:
>
> I do
mment from people
> > because it was ASP and not CFML, but out of the thousands of members
> > the site had, this was insignificant and not enough to bother me or
> > warrant me changing it.
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mic
anuary 2011 14:11
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
I've already explained why to bother. The same argument could be made about
"Why bother changing a logo or a corporate brand?" I doubt any company gets
thousands of complaints about their current brand or logo.
I fully agree. The pace of change in Microsoft land is very stressful to
developers. They kill off and deprecate multiple technologies and product
features each year. Microsoft scrapping DTS sent many database developers
back into training classes. Adobe also has a history of killing off
products.
All,
Are there bugs in ColdFusion Builder? Yes. Will there be bugs in the next
release? Yes. I hope that as professional software developers we can
understand that software ships with defects. Some bugs are known, some
unknown. Some are critical to many, some are critical to just a few.
-Adam
> I've already explained why to bother. The same argument could be made about
> "Why bother changing a logo or a corporate brand?" I doubt any company gets
> thousands of complaints about their current brand or logo. The reason is
> optics. If you aren't into marketing you likely won't "get" it.
> Microsoft's uncertain commitment to Silverlight is the biggest area of
> concern for many Microsoft developers at present.
Well, to put this in a larger context, Microsoft has a history of
throwing things out into the marketplace, then dropping them if they
don't go anywhere, or killing them wi
k
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Chabot [mailto:mcha...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 12:15 AM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> I disagree with the suggestion that the technologies major companies decide
> t
cf_builder so expensive?
I disagree with the suggestion that the technologies major companies decide
to use is unimportant to developers. I am active in the Microsoft developer
and database communities and I can say with certainty that Microsoft makes a
big deal about how they use their own
rrant me changing it.
>
> Russ
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
> Sent: 28 January 2011 14:00
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> Fair enough. Though it's still kind of missing my point. My
-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Fair enough. Though it's still kind of missing my point. My point is that is
Adobe doesn't use CF it should at least mask the use of other technologies.
That's easy to do and fairly cheap. You can _look_ like you aren't using php
se the proportion of cfdeveloper compared to
> php developers is tiny, so clearly there is not as many people out there
> with the time or inclination to write OSS apps.
> Perhaps Railo/OBD will change this, but not by very much I reckon.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> F
You are pointing out another example where Microsoft developers have been
highly critical of Microsoft. One of the loudest calls is for Microsoft to
integrate Silverlight into MSIE so users don't need to download a separate
plugin. Silverlight does not have the widespread penetration that the Flas
ot by very much I reckon.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:dwa...@figleaf.com]
Sent: 28 January 2011 06:40
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
> This isn't actually true at all, Dave. To give one high profile
> example, take Hotmail. Microsoft
haha. what a great way to start the day! ha. Thanks for that.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:55 AM, rex wrote:
>
> I hope this is funny for you guys because it was funny for me
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwzklHZqkbE
>
> Ballmer seems like a nice guy. It wasn't an iPhone, so he didn't smash
I hope this is funny for you guys because it was funny for me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwzklHZqkbE
Ballmer seems like a nice guy. It wasn't an iPhone, so he didn't smash
it ;-)
On 1/27/2011 10:14 PM, Mike Chabot wrote:
> products. The CEO of Coca-Cola will never be seen enjoying a Peps
> I disagree with the suggestion that the technologies major companies decide
> to use is unimportant to developers. I am active in the Microsoft developer
> and database communities and I can say with certainty that Microsoft makes a
> big deal about how they use their own technologies to power t
> This isn't actually true at all, Dave. To give one high profile
> example, take Hotmail. Microsoft got a huge amount of shit for the
> fact that Hotmail ran on Linux (or BSD? I think BSD) with Apache.
> Sure, they bought Hotmail and that was the primary reason. But people
> kept saying "oh, Wind
I disagree with the suggestion that the technologies major companies decide
to use is unimportant to developers. I am active in the Microsoft developer
and database communities and I can say with certainty that Microsoft makes a
big deal about how they use their own technologies to power their com
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Dave Watts wrote:
> And if you go on mailing lists for those other products,
> you don't find developers talking about what's used on what web sites,
> and how that reflects on anything meaningful.
This isn't actually true at all, Dave. To give one high profile
e
Hey...if I am teaching myself, does that count? hehehehe
-Original Message-
From: DURETTE, STEVEN J (ATTASIAIT) [mailto:sd1...@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 09:28
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Ok... It was there. I applied for it in September
*shrugs*
I see you want the last word. And that's ok. Like I said last time we'll
have to agree to disagree.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Dave Watts wrote:
>
> > I'm not telling Adobe how to run their business. I'm telling other CF
> devs
> > my opinion on two specific topics as they rela
> I'm not telling Adobe how to run their business. I'm telling other CF devs
> my opinion on two specific topics as they relate to business. You make me
> sound like I'm at the gates with a pitchfork and torch.
You're splitting some mighty fine hairs there. Clearly you have an
opinion on how Adob
I'm not telling Adobe how to run their business. I'm telling other CF devs
my opinion on two specific topics as they relate to business. You make me
sound like I'm at the gates with a pitchfork and torch.
I never said they should rewrite any applications. You can mask the use of
php (or cf or any
> No, I don't think there's a bottomless pit of money. That's quite a leap
> Dave. I've said two negative things about Adobe (ever). The first is that it
> doesn't do enough to market CF. This is not an uncommon opinion. And the
> second is that it looks silly to not have your site run on the web
Yeah, I think it's the fact that 98% of our non-CF peers and an equal amount
of pseudo knowledgeable clients see the language we chose as a joke that
creates the insecurity. CF is New Zealand while everything else seems to be
Australia.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
> O
>
>
> Mark A. Kruger, MCSE, CFG
> (402) 408-3733 ext 105
> Skype: markakruger
> www.cfwebtools.com
> www.coldfusionmuse.com
> www.necfug.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January
riginal Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:41 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
> Also, how do you know this is the ONLY place that's ever no
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
> Also, how do you know this is the ONLY place that's ever noticed the Adobe
> isn't running on CF?
I'm with Dave on this: the only people who care that adobe.com has
non-CF technology in use are CFers. And it's part of the insecurity /
vict
No, I don't think there's a bottomless pit of money. That's quite a leap
Dave. I've said two negative things about Adobe (ever). The first is that it
doesn't do enough to market CF. This is not an uncommon opinion. And the
second is that it looks silly to not have your site run on the web dev
tech
> > just for marketing.
>
> Ah yeah. Just. I mean hey, marketing isn't really that important to a
> company right? Companies spend billions on marketing just because it's fun.
> And having consistency across a brand... well that's not very important
> either. I get it Dave. You're in bed with Adob
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Larry Lyons
> wrote:
> > That said I've also started using CFBuilder more. However I do have
> some concerns. As I noted CFBuilder is based on Aptana Studio. With
> the recent announcement that Aptana has been acquired by Appcelerator,
> how is this going t
>> You're right man. Builder doesn't run anywhere. Seriously. All of us
>> using it are just pretending and are manipulating code with the raw
>> power of our big heads.
>
>There's a hands-free typing joke in there somewhere.
Given it was Ray's comment:
Use the Force Ray.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
> Do they? I thought they sold CFBuilder and Dreamweaver. I didn't know they
> made a product targeted to PHP.
I believe they pitch Dreamweaver to PHP developers - it certainly
supports PHP - and they've also featured PHP as a possible back e
>
> just for marketing.
Ah yeah. Just. I mean hey, marketing isn't really that important to a
company right? Companies spend billions on marketing just because it's fun.
And having consistency across a brand... well that's not very important
either. I get it Dave. You're in bed with Adobe and yo
Guys... This was just something funny I noticed... It happens all of the
time when you have to get a project out and the only developer available
doesn't know your preferred language. Maybe it was a new guy, maybe it
was a designer who just used graphical tools (Dreamweaver) to do the
site and the
> > What are "corporate optics"?
>
> Seriously?
Yeah, I'm not familiar with that phrase. I'm just a simple developer.
> > Anyway, I guess Adobe can just pay to rewrite all this software using
> > the proceeds they get from reducing the price of CFB.
>
> I guess. I'm not sure what the means.
The
As far as Aptana being acquired by Appcelerator, the day the announcement came
out Adam did tweet that this has no effect on CFBuilder. Also, Appcelerator
is a great company. Ever use Titanium to do mobile apps? Really nice. So,
either Adobe already has the deal worked with Appcelerator or
Here we go:
http://twitter.com/#!/adrocknaphobia/status/2757809574144
The @Aptana acquisition shouldn't have any effect on #ColdFusion Builder
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Raymond Camden wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>> That said I've also started using
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> That said I've also started using CFBuilder more. However I do have some
> concerns. As I noted CFBuilder is based on Aptana Studio. With the recent
> announcement that Aptana has been acquired by Appcelerator, how is this going
> to affec
Here's my contribution to the issue.
First off CF Builder is very good. I've been using CFEclipse since it first
started, mainly as a plugin with MyEclipse which has some very nice add ons and
much more detailed server controls than CFBuilder.
One thing to note is that CFBuilder is built arou
>
> What are "corporate optics"?
>
Seriously?
What about car dealerships that sell multiple brands? How should they
> proceed?
>
Same applies. Drive one of our brands. Most sales people drive company owned
vehicles.
> What happens when one car company buys another? Do all the employees
> have
Well, this sure was a fun thread to scan through (ha!) It's funny how adamant
people can be about defending their position. Well, here's my two cents, for
what it is worth.
I've used both CFBuilder and CFEclipse, and I personally decided not to put the
money out for a copy of CFBuilder at thi
> Very logical. However corporate optics are rarely logical. It's basically
> the same idea as having a car salesmen at Chevy driving a Chevy.
What are "corporate optics"?
What about car dealerships that sell multiple brands? How should they proceed?
What happens when one car company buys anoth
Correct. However it isn't a product designed FOR php. And I don't have
twisted knickers about it mate. If you want to defend the merits of using
PHP on a site selling CF go ahead. Optically it's a poor choice, regardless
of how many logical or financial reasons there are for it.
On Thu, Jan 27,
I'm pretty sure DreamWeave writes php and gosh, HTML.
I think there are lots of things to have twisted-knickers about these days, but
this isn't one of them.
Peace.
On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> Do they? I thought they sold CFBuilder and Dreamweaver. I didn't kn
Do they? I thought they sold CFBuilder and Dreamweaver. I didn't know they
made a product targeted to PHP.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Scott Slone wrote:
>
> I seem to remember that Adobe sells software to write code in php as well.
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
I seem to remember that Adobe sells software to write code in php as well.
On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> Very logical. However corporate optics are rarely logical. It's basically
> the same idea as having a car salesmen at Chevy driving a Chevy.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 27
Very logical. However corporate optics are rarely logical. It's basically
the same idea as having a car salesmen at Chevy driving a Chevy.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
>
> > I also think that it is funny that the confirmation page is
> > "https://freeriatools.adobe.com/c
ey to me.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Casey Dougall [mailto:ca...@uberwebsitesolutions.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 09:46
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Eric Roberts <
> o
Sorry my failed attempt at humor. I just thought it was funny.
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:rcam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:41 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
There are multiple places on Adobe.com that use PHP
Well Flash isn't an Adobe competitor so I'm not sure that's a good analogy.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Raymond Camden wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:28 AM, DURETTE, STEVEN J (ATTASIAIT)
> wrote:
> > I also think that it is funny that the confirmation page is
> > "https://freeriat
> I also think that it is funny that the confirmation page is
> "https://freeriatools.adobe.com/cfbuilder/thankyou.php";. PHP for stuff
> dealing with ColdFusion?!?!? REALLY?!?!?!?!
Adobe is a big company, and they presumably contract with people for
development, or buy off-the-shelf software.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:28 AM, DURETTE, STEVEN J (ATTASIAIT)
wrote:
> I also think that it is funny that the confirmation page is
> "https://freeriatools.adobe.com/cfbuilder/thankyou.php";. PHP for stuff
> dealing with ColdFusion?!?!? REALLY?!?!?!?!
There are multiple places on Adobe.com tha
obe.com/cfbuilder/thankyou.php";. PHP for stuff
dealing with ColdFusion?!?!? REALLY?!?!?!?!
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Scott Brady [mailto:dsbr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:07 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Where are you
>
> Seriously. All of us
> using it are just pretending and are manipulating code with the raw
> power of our big heads.
>
Pffft. Real coders write code by rubbing two sticks of ram together.
G!
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Raymond Camden wrote:
>
> You're right man. Builder doesn't run
> You're right man. Builder doesn't run anywhere. Seriously. All of us
> using it are just pretending and are manipulating code with the raw
> power of our big heads.
There's a hands-free typing joke in there somewhere.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.f
You're right man. Builder doesn't run anywhere. Seriously. All of us
using it are just pretending and are manipulating code with the raw
power of our big heads.
Seriously though - have you checked to see you are running the latest
version? Have you tried tech support?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:3
Builder sucks, doesn't even run WTF
!SESSION Thu Jan 27 09:37:26 EST 2011
--
!ENTRY org.eclipse.equinox.launcher 4 0 2011-01-27 09:37:26.237
!MESSAGE Exception launching the Eclipse Platform:
!STACK
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.eclipse.core.runtime
ailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 00:23
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
This thread is deteriorating and I'm afraid this email is going to sound a
bit pissy. It's really not intended to but I'm just not sure how to respond
to
imes it just works fine.
>
> I could go on with a lot more than this, but as these are the ones that I do
> see more reguallry than any other bug. A lot of these bugs are productivity
> killers, and others are well I'll just close the file and re-open it, to
> downright anno
Where are you finding this info?
The FAQ ( http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/cfbuilder/faq/ ) only
says you need to be a current student (and that you aren't allowed to use it
for production purposes, which does limit its usefulness for people on this
list).
Scott
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at
And if it is a bug that Adobe has introduced, you should pay nothing
up-front. They should just fix it.
Regards,
Andrew Scott
http://www.andyscott.id.au/
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe
Paying the $500 is the per incident support. So you've got an issue,
you report it and ask for help. If it's a bug, you get your $500 back.
You also have Platinum support, which is maintenance & support.
Maintenance is your subscription ... as long as you keep it valid, you
get new releases at n
Lol, sounds dangerous then...
Regards,
Andrew Scott
http://www.andyscott.id.au/
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark A. Kruger [mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2011 10:43 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
Well that was my only idea... so you are on your own now :)
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Scott [mailto:andr...@andyscott.id.au]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:39 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Mark,
Unlike most people I have the heap status
id.au/
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark A. Kruger [mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2011 10:21 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> What heap size are you running? Sounds like your JVM is resource
> constraine
, January 26, 2011 10:46 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Ok let me clear one thing up, I never said it was a bad product. In fact my
words where I don't think it is a great product, but from what I am hearing
version 3 will be a must have for any developer. Now whether I
I can't believe you said mac's have bugs give me a call - I know a guy
in the witness protection.
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:rcam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:03 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
g for your work.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Long [mailto:d...@northgoods.com]
Sent: 26 January 2011 22:05
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
I do appreciate the assistance I have received from members of this group
but overpriced goods squeeze the cynicism out of my p
This thread is deteriorating and I'm afraid this email is going to
sound a bit pissy. It's really not intended to but I'm just not sure
how to respond to this line of thought without getting personal (and
Eric and I got personal the last time this topic came up - I'm just
not a very sympathetic so
See notes inline.
Regards,
Andrew Scott
http://www.andyscott.id.au/
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2011 4:47 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> Bas
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Andrew Scott wrote:
> from what I am hearing version 3 will be a must have for any developer.
Based on what Ram showed at MAX, I'd say version 2 is a "must have"
(but then I already think version 1 is pretty much a must have :)
> 1) When opening the IDE there ar
CAN
> certificate) Sean ;-)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 22:21
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> We all have priorities and choices and there are pros an
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
We all have priorities and choices and there are pros and cons to all of
them.
I also have a wife (of 11+ years now) and we're still paying off her MBA
loans (from Pepperdine). We have no human kids but we have a lot of
four-legged furry 'kids
11 16:57
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Dave Long wrote:
> Time to learn PHP, I guess.
Don't forget to buy Zend Studio! It's only $299!
> Perhaps the folks at Adobe even want to kill it off, judging by the
>
o: cf-talk
Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
I know I should ignore this thread, I know I should, but ...
>> Perhaps the folks at Adobe even want to kill it off, judging by the
>> price
charged for their Enterprise version.
And if you talk to the ColdFusion sales reps (all
LOL
-Original Message-
From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 13:58
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
Will it have the tag? It's a sure fire way to increase the
popularity of CF.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:
t close the file and re-open it, to
downright annoying.
Regards,
Andrew Scott
http://www.andyscott.id.au/
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2011 3:13 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so e
inal Message-
> From: Casey Dougall [mailto:ca...@uberwebsitesolutions.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 09:46
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Eric Roberts <
> ow...@threeravensconsulting.com&
We all have priorities and choices and there are pros and cons to all of them.
I also have a wife (of 11+ years now) and we're still paying off her
MBA loans (from Pepperdine). We have no human kids but we have a lot
of four-legged furry 'kids' that eat us out of house and home. And I'm
the sole
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Andrew Scott wrote:
>
> Mark, I think I made my stance very clear in a previous thread. I did say
> that the bugs will be fixed in the next release, and I feel that this is
> wrong and I might be a minority on that,
Might be a minority on that? That's funny...
Original Message-
> From: Mark Mandel [mailto:mark.man...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2011 2:58 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: Re: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> uhmn, what?
>
> I think what you mean to say is that, *from what you know* there a
uhmn, what?
I think what you mean to say is that, *from what you know* there are no
plans to fix *the bugs that bother you*.
Which could mean that (a) they aren't being fixed or (b) you haven't been
told.
I don't think it can be unilaterally claimed that no bugs would be fixed,
that seems
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Dave Long wrote:
>
> This is not true of software which, once developed, has only minute costs
> involved as more copies are sold. Margin increases rapidly and thus the
> software could be priced at one half the price and sales might double with
> margin remainin
; From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2011 2:46 PM
> To: cf-talk
> Subject: RE: why is cf_builder so expensive?
>
>
> Yeah...wife...and an ex-wife, 2 kids (one lives with us, other with ex)
plus
> 3 step kids (one lives with
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
