I think the strategy is that folks running solaris environments tend to be
larger firms and be willing to spend the bucks for "Enterprise" software. On
the flip side of that the demand for Pro would be significantly less for
Solaris customers and it saves them development time and cuts rollout costs.

Not saying I agree but that may be there logic...There isn't much we use in
the Enterprise version besides the drivers...

Stace

-----Original Message-----
From: Cary Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: eWeek Article about CF on Linux


<CFRANT>

One of the subtexts here is the utter bankruptcy of MM's approach to 
application servers.

In order to productize CFMX for application servers, they have put the 
relationship between CF and the Java App Server into a black box.

Why?  To prevent users of the standard editions from getting some of the 
"added functionaltiy" of the ColdFusion MX for J2EE packages for free.

Why?  Because they can charge a hefty premium for the J2EE version.

Why?  Because they assume that anyone running one of these servers has 
money to burn.

This is the same approach that they take to CF on Solaris, which is only 
available in an Enterprise version.

I have 9 Sun Fire VL100's deployed with Solaris 8.  These machines each 
cost about $1500 all up with the OS, Netscape One, etc. No way am I going to spend 
$4,999 apiece - over nine times the cost of CF on Windows or Linux 
- to run CF on these boxes.  For $45,000, We are more than happy to learn php...

The MM server line makes no sense to me.  Who can explain the rational for buying 
Flash Remoting MX  for $1k when that functionality is built into CF pro at $800 or 
JRun at $900?

I think that MM needs to simplify it's product line and unbundle all of the features 
in CF Enterprise and CF for J2EE.  If I need sandbox security or a 
Type IV driver for Oracle, I will cheerfully pay for it.  Just don't make me pay for 
it on my appliance server...

</CFRANT>

At 09:06 AM 12/4/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Are these valid complaints from the CF Linux/Unix community?
>
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741132,00.asp
><http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,741132,00.asp>
>
>
>Ryan Kime
>  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web 
>Developer Webco Industries



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.

Reply via email to