If this appears again it;s not intended double post.
Hi all, hi Jochem
It was very nice of you detailing in your answer some points of my original
post. Only, please allow me some rectifications...
You write:
1. It might be a good idea to take on less projects, but for a higher
margin. Not
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:50 AM, GeorgeB wrote:
2. A better distinction between the free and commercial offerings. All
commercial IDE offerings are branded Flash something, all the free
open source stuff is branded Flex something.
In case you didn't notice, FlexBuilder3 is not a FOSS
Hi all. hi Tom, hi Nick, hi Wally
I have to thank you for your understanding! The common denominator of all
answers on why the new version of Flex Builder 3 should be renamed to Flash
Builder 4 is WTF No big deal. Or better, as Tom put it: Just marketing
bollocks!! LOL
Then I can call myself
GeorgeB wrote:
Hi all. hi Tom, hi Nick, hi Wally
I have to thank you for your understanding! The common denominator of all
answers on why the new version of Flex Builder 3 should be renamed to Flash
Builder 4 is WTF No big deal. Or better, as Tom put it: Just marketing
bollocks!! LOL
I think the new name makes perfect sense. The current FlexBuilder
doesn't only build flex. It builds flash as well. When you think
of it, it is truly a Flash Builder. In fact, before they decided to
change them name, I wondered why they were associating the name with
Flex in the first place.
Hi Mark,
Just a short answer (from Wiki) to your question:: In fact, before they
decided to change them name, I wondered why they were associating the name with
Flex in the first place.
Certain things in the following description need be corrected of course, like
the last entry in Release
Hi Paul,
Thanks for replying. I almost agree with your saying. Only let me clear one-two
details:
To my comment :
What's bugging me is that all my current work done for the last 2 years, has to
be referencing as been done in a non-existing (now obsolete?) framework, that
as time goes will
GeorgeB wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for replying. I almost agree with your saying. Only let me clear
one-two details:
To my comment :
What's bugging me is that all my current work done for the last 2 years, has
to be referencing as been done in a non-existing (now obsolete?) framework,
Yes, I can see your point. I think the two of us are the only people
who
think that the Flex brand is weakened by the Flash moniker.
No, there are more of us... We just aren't as vocal!
Gk.
I support you guys!
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Gregor Kiddie
gregor.kid...@channeladvisor.com wrote:
“Yes, I can see your point. I think the two of us are the only people who
think that the Flex brand is weakened by the Flash moniker.”
No, there are more of us... We just aren’t
It's too late, the damage is done, but I agree also FWIW.
An Adobe VP told me about Flex being the open source branding, and Flash
being the commercial product branding. There is no way that customers will
figure that out. They have enough trouble understanding that developers are
Mike wrote:
It's too late, the damage is done, but I agree also FWIW.
An Adobe VP told me about Flex being the open source branding, and Flash
being the commercial product branding. There is no way that customers will
figure that out. They have enough trouble understanding that developers
12 matches
Mail list logo
