Thanks.
Johnny
>That's perfect. Now you can use BlueDragon/J2EE to redeploy all of your
>existing CFML applications to WebSphere. We can raise the price from the
>current $2500/CPU, if that'll keep your management happy. :-)
>
>Should I have an account rep contact you?
>
>Vince Bonfanti
>New Atlanta Communications, LLC
>http://www.newatlanta.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:48 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: "FREE" BD vs. "$$$$" CF
>
>
>This isn't all that odd. in my case the problem is similar, but comes from
>another end. My (very large) company won't consider either product because
>their both too cheap - and so (goes the management opinion) are not fit for
>enterprise use.
>
>We're not allowed to use open source software for the same reasons: free
>means "no support' (which is bogus) and poor quality compared to enterprise
>vendors.
>
>Now wait for the punchline. What did this company decide to standardize on?
>What tool meets their criteria?
>
>IBM WebSphere on IBM Apache. So we end up spending many, MANY thousands of
>dollars on essentially branded open source software. (Which, has an aside,
>is so difficult to configure and learn that we've yet to produce any
>applications significantly better than our legacy CF 4.5 apps).
>
>Jim Davis
>
> _____
>
>From: Claremont, Timothy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:29 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: "FREE" BD vs. "$$$$" CF
>
>The "free" BD vs "$$$$" CF comes down to politics in our organization.
>
>It was a struggle to get my employer to warm up to CF 4.5. I literally
>had to formally donate my copy, make an effective application, then beg
>for forgiveness instead of asking for permission. Slowly but surely,
>there were converts.
>
>Moving to 6.1 at this point means the cost of an upgrade ($600 or so).
>
>Moving to the "free" BD means a hard sell to management that we should
>make use of a product that is "free". And, with the ironic comedy worthy
>of a Dilbert cartoon, management is quite steadfast in the opinion that
>taking a huge gamble with the sanctity of our data with a company like
>Macromedia at a cost of $600 is more prudent than the "free" route with
>the lesser known New Atlanta. The humor is that 4.5 (the version I
>demonstated with) was an Allaire product. New Atlanta vs Allaire, in the
>medical arena, is not exactly the makings of a big draw prizefight.
>
>Now, I could go through a long educational process that explains the
>pros and cons of going with a Macromedia vs a New Atlanta, but the $600
>savings gets eaten away really quick by the time I prepare a
>presentation, bang my head on the walls of my cubicle, make enemies in
>IS for being a rebel, spend $$$ on Tylenol, etc.
>
>So, as painful as it might be for an organization such as ours to pony
>up the $600 for a CF upgrade, the relative cost of going with New
>Atlanta is not worth it. The name "Macromedia" garners enough
>recognition from management and the IT staff where they are at least
>willing to let me get the product onto the network. I can't afford to
>give up that credibility at the cost of $600.
>
>Is this a jab on my part against New Atlanta? Not at all. I am merely
>illustrating why, in MY CASE, $600 for CF is "cheaper" than $0 for
>BlueDragon.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
