;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 Server would need to be recycled
after hits from the 5th unique IP
, 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 Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Naah, then you'd get people using the Developer
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
or
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
anything else.
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
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 development
?
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: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise
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
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 was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
At 09
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 disagree with Dave
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 here
-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 copies of
dreamweaver. So I don't
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
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?
Oops, I posted
No - it might be the only stock right now with potential... with a long
life... a long liver so to speak g.
-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 Re: Pro v
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, then you'd get people using the Developer version to host Internal
[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 posted it here, because I thought it applied to individual CF
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
]
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 posted it here, because I thought it applied to individual CF
developers -- whether
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 external IP addresses
:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
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
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...
The more I think about it, what protects
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
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
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 Chiverton
You
.
-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...
The more I think about it, what protects Macromedia's interests is
*not* the number of IPs, but the fact
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,
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-trial single
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 05:04 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Wednesday, Oct 16, 2002, at 16:28 US/Pacific, Greg Bullough wrote:
In doing so, you have
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
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
, October 16, 2002 5:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 05:04 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
On Wednesday, Oct 16, 2002, at 16:28 US/Pacific, Greg Bullough wrote:
In doing so, you have not only hobbled a lot
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 Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Cranking
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 CF5 only allowed
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:
, 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'd be interested to know how many folks feel
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: http
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'd be interested to know how many folks feel strongly
about
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
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 kind of PR!
You can
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
Subject: Re: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?
Jeeze, that's a good answer -- wish I'd thought
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 kind of PR!
You can sum up this walk through with:
Gentlemen
...
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?
Jeeze, that's a good answer -- wish I'd thought of that!
This is very subtle, you
45 matches
Mail list logo
