Well I will pick (d) which was not on the list. If my brother had a business, and needed a dynamic content site, I would design it for him in CF and tell him to get the thing hosted for 19.95 a month. Why on earth would I want to host a business site on a dsl/cable line?
Douglas Brown Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark A. Kruger - CFG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:40 AM Subject: RE: light editor (was: oh, man) > Yes but... is there really that much money in basement sites? I think one of > the reasons why so many of them ARE in Perl and PHP is that they are done on > a shoestring budget. I want CF to move in the other direction - then I can > afford to hire someone to do all my basement sites for me (ha). > > -mk > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Ruckelshaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:55 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > OK, so let's take a look at this from another direction. You're a Cold > Fusion developer with a "day job" that shells out the grand for CF Pro (plus > the web server and OS), and the $300+ for CF development studio. Yet, you > want to build a functional, database driven site for your brother's business > (or to show off your dog, or whatever) and you want to host it on an old > computer you have set up as a server that's connected to your cable > modem/DSL line. So, would you rather (a) pirate said software from your > employer (not a good thing); (b) use another cheaper/free technology like > PERL or PHP; (c) have an inexpensive but still very functional and familiar > coding tool and a free/cheap way of serving up CF pages from the server you > have hooked up to your cable modem (or that your web host didn't have to pay > one red cent for, so they said "sure, we'll install CF Express")? > > Hmm, let me see. I pick "C". I just turned down a job offer because I > didn't want to stop developing in CF (offer was from a JSP/Websphere > shop)... > > Not everyone who NEEDS these tools at home is an "amateur". > > Pete > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joshua Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:39 AM > Subject: RE: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > > Why is it that talk of taking CF to the current market of FrontPage > > users makes me cringe? > > > > That's exactly what we DON'T need - is trying to take ColdFusion DOWN to > > a more basic level for home users. I can picture a lot of time and > > effort that would be better focused on the advancement of CF being > > wasted on trying to compete with FrontPage. > > > > I like the fact that Macromedia makes professional tools for > > professional developers. Their products are always strong and robust - I > > think fighting battles on both fronts would only serve to impede the > > progress of Macromedia and in turn ColdFusion. > > > > As long as HomeSite+ doesn't go away I'll have no complaints - but it's > > this constant push to be on everyone's desktop that makes products too > > limited for professional developers. I have used Dreamweaver since 1.0 > > and I love it for what it is, but making DW the front end for a CF > > version of FrontPage makes my blood boil. > > > > Microsoft can have the home user - Macromedia should stick with the > > professional route. > > > > This is like saying they should re-develop Freehand to compete with MS > > Paint. > > > > Joshua Miller > > Web Development :: Programming > > Eagle Web Development LLC > > www.eaglewd.com > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (304) 622-5676 (Clarksburg Office) > > (304) 456-4942 (Home Office) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pete Ruckelshaus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > > > > Yes, but at what cost? FP2002 upgrade is $80 (full is $140), while > > Dreamweaver upgrade is $140 (full is $265)...surely the new > > DreamweaverMX will cost even more than Dreamweaver 4... > > > > I'm not saying that FP2002 is better (certainly it is NOT). However, > > Macromedia needs to create tools for the home/small business market that > > can directly compete, price-wise, with FP (which allows users to create > > data-driven sites). Personally, I think making CFExpress as ubiquitous > > with ISP's as Front Page Extensions are, and having a tool that can help > > home users/small businesses build data driven sites with a $75 software > > package combined with CFExpress and a simple datasource (Access, FoxPro, > > etc.) would be regarded very favorably in the marketplace, especially if > > MM really promoted CFExpress to ISP's and also offered a Linux version > > (since most "cheap" web hosting seems to be Linux-based). > > > > I think the old Costnerism "If you build it, they will come" > > applies...and many of those users that grow to know and love CFExpress > > will eventually "graduate" to fully-blown tools like CF and DW Studio. > > > > Just my 2 cents > > > > Pete > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Trusz, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:01 AM > > Subject: RE: light editor (was: oh, man) > > > > > > <snip> > > > As an additional benefit, DWMX will continue to be a nice > > > out-of-the-box solution for less ambitious sites. You can build your > > > own interactive > > site > > > almost as easily as a static site with DWMX. It will remain > > technologically > > > superior to FP and will likely hold its own, if the company survives. > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
