Do you have access to a linux machine? Jesse Noller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Macromedia Server Development Unix/Linux "special guy"
"But I neeeeed tacos! I need them or I will explode! That happens to me sometimes!" -GIR > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:57 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Where is javac? [Now OS/X redux] > > Out of curiosity, where did you get the version of CFMX you run on OSX > daily? Did you build it yourself using Dick's method or is there another > way to do it? I'd stop complaining if I could just get a copy. I don't > give a crap about Verity and WebServices, while on the horizon for the > application I'm currently building, aren't a big concern for me right > now. > > Is there a way to do it without having to buy VirtualPC? > > Joshua Miller > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:22 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Where is javac? [Now OS/X redux] > > > On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 08:15 , Jesse Noller wrote: > > No, I was the only one from Macromedia who commented. The users > who > > feel strongly about the subject would obviously say yes. > > Well, I commented too. I run CFMX on OSX day-in, day-out and do all my > development on it. But. As I have repeatedly pointed out IT IS > UNSUPPORTED. > Verity doesn't work, publishing web services doesn't work. I'm sure > other > stuff doesn't work too. For what *I* need, it does the job. If it > breaks, > I'm on my own. > > Jesse's points about cost / ROI for ports are spot on. I worked for a > software company in the early 90's who targeted about 20 different > hardware / OS combinations. We had to create phenomenally portable code > in > order to be able to do that in a cost-effective manner - which strictly > limited the sophistication of our products! > > > Neither of these avenues have been shown, or opened to us as of > yet, > > our most common feedback is for a "Free Developer version" for OS/X. > > Exactly. This would be a zero-revenue situation for us which makes the > port unappealing. More to the point, users would still expect everything > > to work flawlessly. Look at the loud complaints already over some of > thee > small differences between CF5 and CFMX! Multiply that by an already > vocal > minority clamoring for the OSX port and multiply *that* by some > necessarily omitted functionality - like Verity - and it hardly bears > thinking about! > > While Dick is an admirable champion of the platform, he is also a very > good example of the level of 'noise' we make expect if the OSX port > wasn't > perfect (no offense Dick, I'm sure you understand what I mean!). > > > Trust me, I *want* us to support these platforms, but as a developer, > > QA > > engineer, long time employee and a budding business person, wanting > > something is nice, but given current constraints and reality, it is > not a > > viable opportunity for continued growth and revenue generation. > > Like Jesse, I also want to see us support more platforms but, as Jesse > so > correctly points out, it ain't viable (and may never be so). > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
