Well put. A lil' defensive (understandably) but well put. On 9/29/06, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry to chime in late, and after Mike said not to... I haven't been on > this list in a long time either. However, this isn't about .NET vs. > CF. It's to respond to Dave's comments. > > I know that Dave works in the DC area (please correct me if I'm wrong) and > DC is strong into CF with all of the government agencies. That's great, > it's a good place to be becuase CF might be cheaper for a government agency > to produce website or intranets. I know that they use Solaris a lot, so CF > is a good place to be. > > However, it's simply absurd to suggest that Microsoft is not strong in the > enterprise segment. I currently work in Premier technical support for > Microsoft supporting ASP.NET and IIS. The list of companies that use > ASP.NET reads basically the same as the Fortune 500. I know because I've > supported their technical issues, and they do some crazy programming tricks > that CF simply isn't capable of, nor can Java do it either. It's not because > CF is inferior at what it does, but because, as someone pointed out earlier, > .NET can interact with the entire OS. Yes, these features are very > important at the enterprise level. Event logging to the System and > Application event logs, or a custom log; multiple session state stores; > HTTPHandlers that can intercept incoming requests and modify them; .NET > remoting; Native support for XML data transformation from the SQL database; > interoperability between classes written in different languages; and most of > all, enterprise support at a level that cannot be matched by anybody. > > One of the biggest things that can be said about MS products is that they > are supported, constantly. When you have a crash, we can tell you how to > capture a memory dump and then tell you exactly the line of code that caused > it. When you have a memory leak, we can pick out the exact object that the > dev decided there should be millions of and how to work around it. When you > need to secure your intranet applications to particular groups of users that > exist on your corporate intranet, we use integrated windows authentication > with a single sign on and your code can be protected using NTFS permissions. > > Yes, all of these things are more expensive overall than a guy writing > some CF and deploying it to a server. But be assured that the enterprise is > where MS is entrenched. Millions of dollars are spent by big companies on > our contracts, and it's because they know when something goes wrong, MS will > be there to back it up 100%, and we can fix it. There's no level of support > like that from anybody else. > > But even better, we have professional support for the little guy. When you > write you own memory leak (and believe me, it can be done using JRUN and CF) > we can tell you why that exists as well. Our professional support costs > some money ($245) but that's cheap when you have a seriously important > application that needs to be fixed NOW. > > Here are a few companies that I've had cases for, recently: > Johnson & Johnson > Fidelity Financial > ExxonMobil > Federal Reserve Back > State Government of Masschusettes > Parliament of Canada > AARP > > > We don't need a list like Ben Forta's. We're big time enterprise, way > bigger than Dave would have you believe. We don't count the number of > companies using .NET, we don't have to. Just search for the numbers of jobs > available, that will tell you all you need to know. > > > - Matt Small > > >It's always a bit unsettling for me to hear Microsoft products and > >"enterprise" in the same sentence, even though I've long believed that > they > >can work in the enterprise. And yes, you can build mobile, web and > desktop > >applications with .NET - I'm a big fan of the .NET Compact Framework, > >myself. But you're not building one application at that point, you're > >building three applications. Those applications might share some common > >components, and even some of the same presentation logic, but they'll > still > >be three distinct applications. And, aside from the web portions, your > >Microsoft applications will only run on Microsoft products - you'll have > a > >heck of a time deploying your .NET CF apps to Blackberries. > > > >Right now, the enterprise runs Java. CF integrates nicely with Java. You > >will simply not find too much .NET in enterprise environments yet. I'm a > big > >fan of MS products, generally, and I think they're often better than > they're > >credited to be, but unless you buy into the idea of the "Microsoft > stack", > >where everything you use comes from Microsoft, you don't really have > viable > >solutions. Most enterprises have not bought into that idea yet. I don't > know > >if they ever will. > > > >Enterprise products are, and have always been, expensive. I strongly > suspect > >that Adobe would have difficulty selling CF as an enterprise product if > they > >lowered the price. > > > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:254845 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
