Please read these emails in context of their thread. I am not suggesting that CFML developers use java.io.File instead of cffile or cfdirectory. I am suggesting that disabling cffile and cfdirectory DOES NOT SECURE YOUR SERVER.
-Matt On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > some of us dont know what that is matt. > a lot of us dont know java & maybe dont have time to learn it. > a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:) > > > > > > > > > > > >> Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File? >> >> -Matt >> >> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote: >> >>> Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway >>> >>> ====================================== >>> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! >>> For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com >>> Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all >>> databases. ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 >>> Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: >>> http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf >>> ====================================== >>> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Ryan Kime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM >>> Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? >>> >>> >>> | >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 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
