> Dave; I have the highest level of respect for all you are > doing and have done in support of the CF community ...
Why, thank you, but you needn't preface any disagreement with a disclaimer. I'm not always right, and my opinions are just that - my opinions. So, feel free to disagree at any time! > Where I digress from your observation, is not that a > developer need not know about operating systems, in fact > they should. Not all developer environments utilize > developers as network people. Perhaps in yours, but not > in all. Network administrators, and system administrators > usually have specific duties and responsibilities, such > as uptime, content availability, intrusion detection and > avoidance, and other security related matters. In many > companies, the duties and responsibilities of developers > is completely separate from that of the system admins, > and this is especially true if the production servers are > at a remote location. I agree with all of these points. I don't think that developers should necessarily be systems administrators, or network administrators, or anything else but developers. However, my point was simply that a developer who knows a bit more about networks and OSs will be a better developer than one who doesn't. This is especially true for network applications, and CF applications certainly fall within that category. I fully agree that Mike shouldn't have any problems running CFMX on Windows XP, and that the CFMX installer as of updater 3 could certainly be improved. My recommendation that he (or anyone else writing applications that'll be deployed on Windows 2000 Server) develop on Windows 2000 Server wouldn't change even if his installation had worked flawlessly. > As for Windows 2003, I father disagree with the opinion > that it will not become popular for some time. It can be > characterized as Windows XP on steroids, and combining > the stability of Win2k. It has a huge marketing budget, > and I expect it to be in wide use in a very short time. > When combined with Office 2003, and the included RCT > functionality, It will no doubt, in my mind, become an > awesome platform. Those who delay embracing the > technology, will become behind the curve, so to speak. > IMHO. As Jim Davis indicated, data center and ISP adoption might not be as fast as Microsoft would like. I'm using it, personally, and I like it a lot, but I'd summarize it as "a really nice version of Windows 2000". (I swiped that line from an MS marketing guy, actually.) I think that the product activation stuff might stand in the way of its adoption in environments where disk imaging is currently popular for deployment. 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 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
