You wrote:
All of the "Harvest" components, which should significantly
lower the costs for managing multiple applications per server. If they're
going to release something which lowers the ISP's cost of business, why
shouldn't MM feel entitled to a piece of that, especially given the amount
of programming effort that it entailed?
Isn't that the rub. The vendor is telling me that I am going to save money
so charge me more. But the vendor doesn't know how to run my business. In
fact the vendor often struggles with keeping their own operation up. How
many times have we seen posts, "Is the Allaire site down?"
Moreover, there is no guarantee that it will save money. There are still
significant and critical bugs in CF 4.5 that have not been fixed. DO you
really think you are going to save money going to a .0 release from Allaire.
Their 4.0 was a unmitigated disaster. 3.0 was almost as bad. It took two
service packs before the darn thing was stable enough to use in production.
Don't expect anything better with CF5. If you deploy CF5 at release date
expect to spend a lot of time and money paying to be part of the extended
beta test program.
When you go by a brand new car, do you trust the dealer to tell you that it
is reliable and you will save money. No, of course not. You ask them to show
you proof and you get independent reporting. But here you are saying that we
should trust Allaire to save us money because they know what they are doing
when it comes to shared hosting. I remember an earlier conversation with
Jeremy when I was trying to deploy the very first shared hosting of CF with
version 1.0. His response to me is 1.0 isn't designed to work with multiple
hosts and why would you want to do that. Do you really think people will pay
you to host applications?
When 1.5 came out, we were finally able to start shared hosting on a
national level but it wasn't until 2.01 that Allaire finally had an
environment that would work in a shared hosting environment. It was almost
two years before they realized that people would pay for shared hosting.
Even then applications like Forums were never written to work in a shared
hosting environment. Allaire has been slow to understand this market much
less embrace it. Now you are telling me that they understand it so well that
they want to save me money by raising the price for hosting by 300%. Yeah
right!!!
- Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: New CF5 Partner Hosting License
> So, you're saying Macromedia is _purposely_ trying to get out
> of being an application server for low-end, shared hosting? And
> they're doing this by making it prohibitively expensive for
> hosting providers. I think you're onto something.
No, I don't think they're purposely trying to get out of anything. I think
they're pursuing the share of the market that makes the most sense for them
to gain, from their perspective. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised
if they spent a disproportionate amount supporting ISPs' problems, with very
little visible return. The historical direction of CF from version 3 onward
has been aimed at the enterprise as best Allaire could, with the addition of
shared memory, caching functionality, LDAP and X.500 security integration,
and server clustering. It was never really intended for use in a
shared-server environment:
- there's only one server instance in memory,
- it's always favored performance over stability, which is fine for
dedicated applications, but not so good when any Joe can run code on a given
box for a $50/year fee
- individual applications can't have performance constraints placed on them
Furthermore, had Allaire spent any time addressing those points, the core
product would probably have suffered as a result. Now, although Allaire
hadn't made significantly more per unit selling CF to ISPs as opposed to
others, I'll bet they've had to field more support calls as a result of
those ISP sales, when someone wrote code without locks, or with infinite
loops, or some other stupid server-crashing trick.
Consider this: what's one of the more noticeable additions to CF 5
Enterprise? All of the "Harvest" components, which should significantly
lower the costs for managing multiple applications per server. If they're
going to release something which lowers the ISP's cost of business, why
shouldn't MM feel entitled to a piece of that, especially given the amount
of programming effort that it entailed?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
