Michael, I've noticed you, and others, have mentioned server maintenance. To be clear, I think there is a -far- difference between someone who is an expert in Apache and IIS tuning and someone double clicking to install Apache. I don't think developers should be fine tuning Apache, or DB servers. But they *should* be able to run a visual installer and accept the defaults. I run MySQL and SQL Server just fine. I don't consider myself even close to being a DBA, but I can make a database and tables and that should be good enough I'd say.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Michael Christensen <[email protected]>wrote: > > Good tips about developers being able to run software under other > licensing rules - I did not think that one through fully I can see now. > > I personally disagree, respectfully of course, with the people who say, > that developers should be able to maintain CF and web server, as well as > set up 3rd party components etc. To me, that is like saying that any > developer should be able to set up a database server, know how DNS > functions etc. > > While I would agree, that knowing some of these things could be beneficial > for a developer from time to time, I feel that developers should be > specialists who focus solely on developing - not on server maintenance. > > I don't know if this might be a cultural difference (in terms of how > things are done) - me being Danish personally - but in all places I've > worked the last 10 years, the IT department has done most of the > configuration and maintenance of developer machines. Not that there is > necessarily anything wrong with developers setting things up themselves, > but I understand (from the company's perspective) how it can be beneficial > to have these things centralized. > > Following the previous inputs in this thread, I went digging in my old > emails and it turns out (I had completely forgotten about this) that we did > indeed talk about switching over from shared resources, to each developer > running their own complete setup. The plans were eventually dropped, as it > was deemed too expensive (in terms of lost productivity) and adding an > additional layer of complexity in terms of maintenance. > > This was back in 2007 and perhaps it is time to revisit this once more. > You guys' passionate arguments for this approach has certainly given me > some food for thought and I will take this up with my colleagues in the > near future. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:354235 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
