> If the software company claims to support the platform, then > the installer should be configured for it. no compromise here.
Last week, I configured someone's Win2K Pro laptop to run Apache 2.0.46, IIS 5, and CFMX simultaneously. I did this for a very specific, and kind of odd reason which isn't really relevant to the thread. The Apache configuration was set up as multi-homed, and also configured to support CF 5. Now, no matter how good the MM guys are, I doubt they'd be able to easily handle this install. > > With the exception of the cacheRealPath issue, these > > issues, while they may be common to everyone installing CF > > and aren't local to you, don't have anything at all to do > > with CFMX, but rather have to do with web server > > configuration. No matter how well Macromedia makes the > > installer, they will not be able to do away with the > > requirement that the person installing the product have > > an adequate level of knowledge about web server > > configuration. > > Most servers admins are MSCE types, not CFMX types. Yes, and the point of that is what exactly? You don't have to be a "CFMX type" to configure your web server. If I tell a competent web server administrator that, in order to run CFMX well, you have to move this folder here or there, or create a new virtual server, or set filesystem permissions in such-and-such a way, there shouldn't be any problem. > Unfortunately most of these admis have the ear of top > management, a higher level thn the lowly developer who > had hyped the purchase of the software. In my experience, which I freely admit may well be atypical, neither server administrators nor developers usually get to pick the platforms with which they'll work. > I don't think anyojne is looking for a free lunch. What > is being asked is a configuraton that is advertised be > covered. Any others can be referred to as "non-standard" > and covered elsewhere is either release notes, or > documentation. > > But, perhaps you are preaching to the choir. I love the > platform, and hype it when I can. My job will be easier > when these issues are addressed. > > My posts on this list are not to denigrate the product, > but to assist in improving it, thus making it, if possible > a no-brainer to deploy. The benefits will be increased > sales and more rapid migration, That is a good thing. I'm certainly not impugning your motive for your argument. In an ideal world, I'd agree with you that the installer should do everything for you. Unfortunately, in the less-pleasant world I inhabit, I suspect that this is a goal that can't be reached without compromising other, equally important things. It's a simple fact that every hour that the MM guys spend working on the installer is one less hour spent working on something else - if they work on the installer plus the "something else", that increases their investment, and will likely result in an increase in the cost of the product. Given that they're probably not going to be able to make the installer work well enough in every possible situation, that hour may well be wasted. Also, the more functionality that is hidden from the person doing the install, the less likely that person will be able to deal with unexpected install problems when they do occur. 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
