>I used the word "free".....they use the word "included"
Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to: http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt >Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). Hmmmm...maybe to keep other people from using your database connections and your custom tags. Plus keep the general population on the server from using cfdirectory/cffile outside their account's root. That's enough to make me look elsewhere. -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I can count how many issues on one hand). I used the word "free".....they use the word "included". Why would you "run away" if they are using Pro/Standard? Why should they use Enterprise if it's not required (i.e. clustering/load balancing etc.). These guys are a national ISP and can easily absorb the cost of the software....that's how. Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com --------------------------------------------------------- Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > "There's no such thing as a free lunch" > > I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a > pretty penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the > cost on to customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term > "FREE" and not "included" when describing their plans. > > Which version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise, > don't walk, but run away as fast as you can. > > Ryan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > Hey All, > > Just thought I'd chime in here. > > I've seen a lot of folks mentioning BlueDragon and how it may bring > down hosting costs for CF. Well I'm not sure about the US, but CF is > starting to > be offered for NO EXTRA CHARGE up here in Canada. > > www.uniserve.com for example (and there are others). > > NT Hosting with SQL Server 2000 and CFMX in a shared environment for > about $35 CDN/month and they rock!! I've used the company they > recently acquired > (Axion Internet) for the past 5 years and the service only got better after > the merger. Beleive it or not the SQL Server does not even add any monthly > cost...just a $25 CDN setup fee!! > > So while BD may help bring other ISPs down to earth.....that move is already > happening here ;-) > > Cheers > > Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. > VP & Director of E-Commerce Development > Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. > t. 250.920.8830 > e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Macromedia Associate Partner > www.macromedia.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group > Founder & Director > www.cfug-vancouverisland.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I > > am (CrystalTech). > > > > However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting > > prices down significantly (one of the complaints I here about CF) so > > I would really like to see it offered by a few hosts. > > > > As Vince pointed out in a branch from this thread BlueDragon also > > makes excellent sense for somebody that wants to package their CF > > application for use on a server lacking CF (which can be in either > > J2EE or, soon, .NET). > > > > Although this market has traditionally been very small with CF Blue > > Dragon may expand it greatly. > > > > Jim Davis > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > > There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How > > > many of > > us > > > would move our site(s) to a hosting company using BD instead of MM > > > ColdFusion? > > > > > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > > Webapper Services LLC > > > Web Site http://www.webapper.com > > > Blog http://www.webapper.net > > > > > > Webapper <Web Application Specialists> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? > > > > > > > > > If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is > > prohibitive > > > it > > > > > may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also > > > prohibitive > > > > > (although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a > > > > > cost analysis). > > > > > > > > > I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software > > > > e.g. > > > CF > > > > could be what tips the scale. If that is the case, then a > > > > cheaper implementation of CFML (BlueDragon) can certainly help > > > > in that > > regard. > > > > > > It definitely has an effect, but in most cases (and certainly not > > > in CF's case) the cost of software is very small compared to > > > maintenance and general infrastructure costs. > > > > > > Even managing a small, single Intranet server using free software > > > can > > be > > > (often surprisingly) very costly once you do a full resource > > > map/prediction - especially when extended to the life of the > > > server. > > > > > > All that being said every little bit does help. ;^) If software > > costs > > > are lower then you total project costs COULD definitely be lower > > > (but often aren't due to other factors not commonly taken into > > > account). > > > > > > > > Many hosting companies are hosting their Intranet at "public" > > hosts > > > for > > > > > this reason. There are some hosts that do nothing but > > > > > traditional Intranet applications along with email (Exchange > > > > > hosting, for > > > example, > > > > > is pretty common due to the cost and complexity of managing an > > > Exchange > > > > > server). > > > > > > > > > That may be, but there are serious issues with outsourcing > > > > internal > > IT > > > > resources externally that many of these companies may not be > > > > aware > > of. > > > > One example of this is that their WAN connection becomes a > > > > single > > > point > > > > of failure. Then of course there are legality issues related to > > giving > > > > non-employees access to sensitive data that aren't under > > > > specific consulting agreements, which is the case when your > > > > email is hosted > > by > > > a > > > > 3rd party. > > > > > > All true - this all depends, of course, on how much the company > > > wants > > to > > > spend as well. If you want to get away more cheaply you'll be > > > sacrificing some things. A full "bullet-proof" system will always > > cost > > > more. > > > > > > > > No, consider an Intranet with is planned to contain, let's > > > > > say, > > six > > > > > distinct applications (not at all uncommon). My case now is > > > > > that > > > each > > > > > of these applications only has to save two hours of > > > > > development > > time > > > > > due > > > > > to CF for it to be just as cost effective as a "free" > > > > > solution. > > > > > > > > > Of course, the case with BlueDragon would only need to save one > > > > hour per application. > > > > > > True. I'm not arguing against Blue Dragon but rather the concept > > > that software costs (at this level) are major considerations. Too > > > many > > times > > > I've heard "we can't afford CF" only to watch a company spends > > thousands > > > more pursuing an untried "free" solution. > > > > > > The problem here is almost always one of training and > > > applicability. > > A > > > company that has great Linux/PostGres/PHP people will, of course, > > > use them. But a company looking for a solution often gravitates to > > > free software due to cost concerns. > > > > > > Developers are then in the position of learning these tools as > > > they develop - which ends up costing far, far more in the long run > > > than setting up, for example, a Windows environment that they may > > > have some experience with. > > > > > > For a medium/large company this isn't a problem as the extra time > > > can > > be > > > split with R&D/Training and down the road you do gain. But for > > > the > > very > > > small company this often locks them into a money-pit; tying them > > > into > > a > > > solution they don't know and resulting either in a failed project > > > or > > one > > > that doesn't meet expectations. > > > > > > Many of them are roped in by contractors that claim they can "pick > > > up" something easily. My advice to small business is always stick > > > with > > what > > > you know and always pay extra for gurus. > > > > > > Jim Davis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
