On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 07:52 PM, Dave Watts wrote: >> It appears that this sort of pricing is artificial, and nudges >> customers to be dishonest -- since I can't see how it can be >> enforced. > > Actually, in most enterprise environments I've seen, this doesn't > really > come up. Most server products in those environments tend to be fully > licensed. It's not that those environments have a higher moral > standard, but > that they have relatively strict policies about these things, and > people > aren't spending their own money anyway, if you know what I mean. If > you're a > middle manager, would you risk your job to save your bosses some money? > Also, no one would want to invalidate their tech support - having tech > support is perceived as a really important thing in the enterprise.
I thought rthat support would be the reason -- but wanted someone else to state the fact. Over the life of the installation, I suspect that the initial cost of CFMX is relatively minor when compared to other costs. > >> Why not just charge based on product capabilities? > > Because product capabilities don't have anything to do with it, really. > Vendors charge what the market will bear. > Ahh, a realist! >> Do Server OS platforms charge based on the number of CPU'? -- >> At least they would have a valid reason and an enforcement >> mechanism. > > I suspect that most server operating systems don't do this simply > because > it's irrelevant at that level - you get the server OS with the server. > If > you look at Windows as an example, Microsoft doesn't really care about > how > many processors you have - they care about how many clients will > access the > server. That makes more sense for them, as they're likely to get more > for a > four-processor box as a single processor box, just because it'll be > able to > support more clients. > I am not familiar with any server software offerings. By clients do you mean concurrent browsers accessing the server, or something else. Apple, on its Server software has 2 prices: 10 clients; and unlimited clients. > On the other hand, it's common for database servers to work this way. > Oracle > has traditionally been the worst in this regard. Basically, for a long > time, > buying Oracle was a lot like buying a car - they'd milk you for > whatever > they thought they could get away with. > Mmmm... I guess this has changed. Thanks Dick > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
