After reading the article, I can see why one would get a bit defensive about
the primary tool that he/she uses. But I wouldn't. CF, .Net, PHP,
etc....each have their own strengths and weaknesses. As developers we
choose the tool that both interests us most and that gets the job done best
for our needs. Regarding the future, there seems to be plenty of excitement
in the Adobe world about CF especially now that it ties in so well with new
technologies like Flex. The only concern I have after reading all of the
previous emails is the discussion of jobs being so tight in the CF market in
comparison to .Net developers. But then again, so long as the supply of jobs
isn't less than the supply of developers, we're ok in that regard as well.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
justin cook
web developer :: macromedia certified
----- Original Message ----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:34:44 AM
Subject: RE: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
That's a great story. I agree with Rick Law: use the right tool for the
job. It all depends on what you have to accomplish. Down and dirty does
not have a place in developing commercial software. Down and dirty is
perfect for proving your point.
Thanks
Tom
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher Jordan
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
As far as the speed argument goes: it took me a week to start being
productive in CF, and that was with no background knowledge in CF
whatsoever. I'm not sure the same could be said for .NET. Our client's are
far less concerned with the elegance of the code (i.e. whether it's OO
based, whether we separate business logic, etc.), and far more concerned
that the tools we write for them work and do the job they're supposed to do.
That said, we do try to take our time when we can to do things the "right
way" separating out our business logic from our presentation logic and such,
but there are times when we need to prove to a prospective client that we
can do the job and do it quickly, and we could always get that done with CF.
Now, if the same could be said for a group of folks experienced in .NET I
couldn't say. I just know that because CF gives us the ability to do things
in a "quick and dirty" manner, we have gotten our foot in the door at more
clients. Then, after we get our foot in the door, and we've proved what can
be done in short amounts of time, they are then more at ease paying us to
take our time and do things the "right way".
The client that I currently work five days a week for was that way. They
wanted to convert an old DOS application over to a web based application.
They had an idea for converting just a small piece of the old application's
functionality, and their own programmers (Java and As400/RPG) told them that
the project would six months, two DBAs and a couple of extra programmers.
The project took a couple of guys in my company three days. And we had to do
that for free, because the client didn't believe us when we said it could be
done, and they only agreed to entertain the idea if they didn't have to pay
for it. That was roughly two years ago, and now we're rewriting they're
entire application for them... the "right way". :o)
Well, thems my two cents.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm in agreement that part of the belief that .NET development is not as
rapid as CF development has to do with the headstart that CF has had in the
marketplace over any .NET language. Part of it is a learning curve issue.
I would easily say that CF is still easier to pick up than C#, and I would
say that's where the "speed" argument comes from.
That being said, if you've had the same level of proficiency with C# that
you'd have with .NET, the development time between the two for the same app
would be similar.
Also note that CF is currently in its 7th version, while C# is only on
version 2. My initial beef with many of the .NET languages was that it
actually did take an excruciatingly long time for me to build very simple
things in my first attempt in C#. Part of it was the learning curve, part
of it was with the way things are done in .NET. Querying a database was a
total pain in .NET (at least 4-6 steps in .NET vs. 2 in CF), but with .NET
2.0, they've simplified that task to the point where it's not so much of a
pain.
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brent Helms
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:45 AM
To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
What is so slow about .NET?
I think a solid implementation of CF will even take a good amount of time
honestly, unless you are up for a quick and dirty "lets put all of our logic
on the webpage". A true methodology with "separation" takes a little bit of
time to implement. I find .NET quick enough, and with the advances in their
"intellisense" built into Studio, and lets not forget all the additions in
2.0, I find myself not really slowed down at all; instead, creating true OO
apps in a timely fashion.
Dont get me wrong though, my roots were CF, but I made the switch (not
enough time to keep my hands in both buckets). I cannot compare the two as
its been years now since i've looked at what CF has done, but if you are
going to say ".net development is just slow"; then I would have to say "not
really if you know what you are doing".
On 10/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I'm not an MS-basher either (most of the time), I do firmly believe in
using the right tools for the right job. I certainly believe that .NET has
it's place and CF has it's place, and there would be times when utilizing a
.NET architecture would be beneficial. I don't see a reason or need for
such articles that bash one over the other because each has its own
strengths and weaknesses and I'd likely selectively use one instead of the
other for projects that would benefit from its strengths.
Unfortunately the people using the technologies and the people deciding
which technologies to use are not the same people, and often the latter will
often take the "safer" route. More people are talking up .NET than CF which
doesn't help either.
I imagine the same debate will include Flex when Microsoft releases its
competitor for building RIAs.
Rick Law
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Moore
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:17 PM
To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
I understand that sentiment, believe me....been there...
That is why MS has the hold that it does. I am not a MS "basher". I firmly
believe as other do (including the "market") that it is the best platform
there is on the market today.
I do believe that there is more to be "discovered" in the web arena.... We
keep hearing about the negatives of certain technologies, CF included, but
in every circumstance, everything is compared to dotNet. To who's end???
What has dotNet done that others have not done before or for that matter
better?
This blind following toward the dotNet initiative is somewhat
counter-productive to me. There are programs out there like CF that allow
for things to be done now, and quickly.
I am a "newbie" compared to many but I know that the most important part of
any application is to get things done and to get things done under
budget!!!!
For me, it's CF until MS opens up and gets things done quicker, more
efficiently, and more open to other platforms other than their own!
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Knipp
To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
Sadly most of the people who make the decisions are not techies. They go
with what's safe.
Nobody ever got fired for recommending Microsoft.
On 10/27/06, Mark Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
tom.schreck 's article sounds awfully like a marketing response memo
directly from Redmond.
Bottom line - CF is getting the job done and giving professionals the tools
to create the backbone of a new web with Flex.
It's time the IT professionals try to convince the stuffed shirts and bean
counters (and I happen to be one - bean-counter that is ...) that maybe MS
is not the "light at the end of the tunnel". Sometimes when you see the
light you also hear a train whistle!!!!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Sophek Tounn
To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
Hi All,
My company is moving to .net and I don't like it, sure .net has some cool
built in components like the datagrid etc. But I can create all those
components in CF if I wanted too. Matter fact I recreated the datagrid based
off or red ballons labs datagrid, you can sort, add, update and delete and
even generate an excel.
With Flex, Apollo, Acrobat, me personally I'm going to stick with CF.
Thanks
Sophek
On 10/27/06, John Ivanoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree this doesn't look good. But what is coming out of max? how
easy will it be to get an Apollo app to talk to cf or a .net app?
I'm interested in what Apollo is going to do to enterprise stuff.
not to get into politics...
did any body talk about Rush Limbaugh until the other day?
I don't know if this person is trying to get more hits on the web site
or what. I find it interesting he talks about cf and how
> > tie-ins with
> > Macromedia's (now Adobe's) other properties ( e.g.
> > Flex).
and asp.net doesn't tie into anything?
and the job market thing. do I want to work on a ford or a bmw? I sure
there are more jobs for a ford mechanic because there are more fords
and maybe they break down more often.
or fix PC or macs?
don't some people still program in cobol?
anyway it is a shame that people can go on and on about things they no
nothing about. just look at me.
oh well, time to go home.
john
On 10/27/06, Joe Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm with Ryan, I don't like this article at all. I believe he uses
> faulty logic to draw his conclusions - arguments based on false
> premises, invalid inferences, yada yada...
> Some people will write anything!
>
> Thanks,
> Joe Kelly
>
> On 10/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've worked with CF for 10 years now, and I've been working with C# for
the
> > past year and a half. Some reasons why beginners choose ColdFusion is
> > because of the quick learning curve. You can get up and running and
> > productive relatively fast with ColdFusion. However, the market has
> > changed. The argument that you can be more productive faster with
> > ColdFusion then ASP may have held water when ASP was first introduced
(pre
> > .net). But I do not think that argument is valid any longer. .net
offers
> > the developer a multitude of options that are just not available with
CF.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am a diehard CF fan, but I'm equally impressed with C# and
VisualStudio
> > 2005. Looking at the job boards will quickly tell you where employers
are
> > (at least in the DFW area). A recent look at texas.computerjobs.com
had
> > 120 C# job openings compared to 4 for ColdFusion. Granted, C# listed
jobs
> > for both web and windows development. I think 120 opening to 4 speaks
> > volumes.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder how CF would do in the market if Adobe would give it away?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On
Behalf Of
> > Ryan Everhart
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:20 PM
> > To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] Recent ColdFusion New Updated
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow... I am not a fan of that article at all. I remember reading plenty
of
> > articles where CF was recommend over ASP and PHP as a language for
> > beginners.
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/06, Clement Cervenka <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Yesterday afternoon, while reading my SitePoint
> > Tech Times #151 - New Browser Wars / State of
> > ColdFusion, I throught that you will might find
> > this article very interesting. Sorry, that the
> > charts didn't copy-over. If asked, I will email
> > this entire issue to you, just post email.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe Cervenka
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > The State of ColdFusion
> >
> > In issue 145 of the Tech Times, I offered some advice
> > on which web technologies beginners should invest time
> > in learning. Ben Forta, the Senior Technical
> > Evangelist at Adobe, felt I misrepresented ColdFusion
> > when I described it as "relatively stagnant." Having
> > done some homework, I've now changed my thinking a
> > little.
> >
> > First, here's Forta's objection:
> >
> > You are correct about the gentle learning curve, but
> > can you clarify "relatively stagnant"? Just to be
> > clear, the Webster definition of stagnant is "not
> > advancing or developing". ColdFusion was first
> > released in 1995, ColdFusion MX 7 was released in
> > 2005, 7.0.1 later that same year, and 7.0.2 in June of
> > 2006. In addition, the ColdFusion team is hard at work
> > on the 8th major version of ColdFusion (currently
> > codenamed "Scorpio"), to be released in 2007.
> > Obviously, we are both advancing and developing
> > ColdFusion, and so the term "stagnant" is utterly
> > inappropriate. As such, I must request that you update
> > and correct your statement.
> >
> > Forta goes on to point out that ColdFusion sits atop a
> > Java foundation, and as such benefits from the full
> > power and flexibility of that platform. My thinking
> > here is that to take advantage of the Java platform
> > beyond what ColdFusion exposes directly, you need to
> > learn Java, which makes it a moot point in a
> > discussion of what a beginner should learn first.
> >
> > Getting back to Forta's main point, there is, of
> > course, no arguing with semantics. If the measure of
> > health for a server-side platform is the frequency of
> > releases, then ColdFusion has life in it yet. But even
> > when considering this meaningless metric, compared to
> > the release schedules of competing platforms like Ruby
> > on Rails, PHP, or the dazzling array of Java web
> > application frameworks, ColdFusion comes off looking,
> > well, "relatively stagnant."
> >
> > How else can we measure the health of a platform?
> > Well, one way is to look at book sales (something we
> > do at lot at SitePoint). O'Reilly showed the results
> > of the past three years of book sales at OSCON 2006.
> > ColdFusion didn't even make the graph, but when asked,
> > Tim O'Reilly replied: "ColdFusion would be showing as
> > a flatline at the bottom if we were to graph it." Of
> > course, a platform might not need books if it were
> > especially well-documented, and perhaps that's the
> > case with ColdFusion. Or perhaps it's just that
> > ColdFusion isn't evolving rapidly enough for people to
> > need new books written about it.
> >
> > Perhaps the way to measure a platform's health is to
> > look at the job market surrounding it. I've seen a
> > smattering of reports that the ColdFusion job market
> > has perked up recently, so let's take a look. When
> > measured against Ruby jobs, ColdFusion looks like a
> > solid enough choice for now.
> >
> > Note that the numbers for "ColdFusion" and for "Cold
> > Fusion" are roughly equal, so you can effectively
> > double the ColdFusion numbers if you don't mind
> > working for a company that can't spell.
> >
> > When you throw in other more established platforms
> > like PHP and ASP.NET, it's clear that ColdFusion isn't
> > the best choice if you're playing the numbers for a
> > new career.
> >
> > Even if you double up the ColdFusion line on this
> > graph, it's still only about 2/3 the size of the PHP
> > job market, while ASP.NET and Java (not shown because
> > it overwhelms the others) are even better choices.
> >
> > But no, I wasn't talking about any of these forms of
> > stangancy. Rather, my description of ColdFusion was
> > based on an impression that the platform's development
> > had slowed to the point that it was unable to respond
> > to the changing needs of real-world web developers in
> > the same way as its aforementioned competitors. Even
> > in major releases like ColdFusion MX 7, changes to the
> > platform seemed to consist mainly of tacked-on
> > features of interest to a small minority of developers
> > (e.g. integrated reporting) or tie-ins with
> > Macromedia's (now Adobe's) other properties (e.g.
> > Flex).
> >
> > Based on Forta's message, however, I thought it best
> > to revisit that premise. I perused a number of
> > ColdFusion blogs, read a ColdFusion developer journal,
> > and spoke with some active members of the ColdFusion
> > community. And I have to say, on some points I was
> > pleasantly surprised.
> >
> > One trend I observed on ColdFusion-related blogs
> > recently was a spate of ColdFusion 8 wishlists. Dave
> > Carabetta published a particularly comprehensive one.
> > These lists give a pretty good feel for where
> > ColdFusion's power users hope the platform is headed.
> > Certain items are worrisome:
> >
> > Eleven years in and ColdFusion doesn't have anything
> > built-in to it to really work with images on any sort
> > of useful level.
> >
> > ColdFusion needs a professional IDE. I have been
> > working with Flex 2 lately, and it's downright
> > appalling to see the level of professional polish on
> > the Flex Builder IDE versus the CFEclipse IDE.
> >
> > Something that's not on these lists that I expected to
> > see, however, is a more powerful application
> > framework. This seems to be one area where the
> > ColdFusion community has really taken charge: Fusebox,
> > Model-Glue, Reactor, ColdSpring, Unity, and many other
> > projects exist as the foundation for different
> > approaches to building ColdFusion applications.
> >
> > Next I sat down with the Summer 2006 edition of Fusion
> > Authority, a free copy of which serendipitously landed
> > on my desk a few weeks ago. First, let me say that
> > this is a top notch publication, with just the right
> > mixture of big names and enthusiastic upstarts writing
> > timely and practical articles.
> >
> > Refreshing my knowledge of ColdFusion code through the
> > pages of the journal, I gained a renewed appreciation
> > for the "hide the hard stuff" approach that's
> > exemplified by the platform. If you're the kind of
> > person who just wants to get the job done without
> > getting drawn into the technical details, ColdFusion
> > may be uniquely suited to your style.
> >
> > An article by Kay Smoljak, who I met at Web Directions
> > South last month, attracted my attention, however. In
> > "An Honest Look at Integrated Reporting", she
> > describes the problems she had making real-world use
> > of one of the flagship new features in ColdFusion MX
> > 7. The severity of the bugs she describes are frankly
> > shocking, and although it sounds like Adobe has been
> > responsive to her bug reports, correcting many of the
> > issues in the recent 7.0.2 release, one has to wonder
> > a) how Adobe could release a flagship new feature that
> > was so fundamentally flawed, and b) how nobody but Kay
> > Smoljak seems to have noticed.
> >
> > In my mind, this signals a disconnect between the core
> > development of ColdFusion and the real-world needs of
> > its user base. The reason there wasn't public outcry
> > as a result of the bugs in the integrated reporting
> > features of ColdFusion MX 7 is because few people
> > bothered to use the feature. When Macromedia/Adobe
> > spends its time building integrated reporting that
> > nobody uses instead of fundamentally useful features
> > like dynamic image generation, there is something very
> > wrong.
> >
> > The good news is that Adobe has announced that
> > ColdFusion 8 will have dynamic image generation built
> > in. Nevertheless, I had to ask Kay Smoljak what she
> > thought of all this.
> >
> > I was actually a ColdFusion developer long before I
> > was anything else, and really my impression of
> > ColdFusion as a whole is pretty positive. [...] Don't
> > get me wrong - ColdFusion integrated reporting is a
> > steaming pile of turds. But I'm still a fan of the
> > platform. Perhaps they don't give the right impression
> > to the wider community of developers, but there is a
> > lot of stuff happening. [...]
> >
> > I have some ideas about the type of developer that is
> > attracted to ColdFusion, which I think contributes to
> > the "stagnant impression" - they tend to be "get the
> > job done and move on to the next target" type people
> > rather than coding enthusiasts - they're just not
> > vocal like Ruby On Rails, PHP and .NET fanatics.
> >
> > ...which is all pretty reasonable, as far as it goes.
> >
> > The question I keep coming back to is this: what
> > exactly are you paying for when you choose to develop
> > for ColdFusion? Lest we forget, Adobe's ColdFusion
> > server costs a pretty penny to license, and that's
> > money that your employer won't be putting into server
> > hardware, developer tools, or, ultimately, your
> > pocket. Just what is it that you're getting in return?
> > It isn't quicker bug fixes, it isn't a larger job
> > market, it's not a richer feature set, and it's not
> > rock-solid reliability. It might be timely support,
> > but other platforms offer that too, and without the
> > up-front costs.
> >
> > In the end, the only solid reason I know of for
> > choosing ColdFusion today is if you simply prefer its
> > way of doing things. But, when we compare ColdFusion
> > to competing platforms, I do honestly believe that the
> > core development of ColdFusion has been stagnant for
> > some time. It may be that this is all about to change
> > with the release of ColdFusion 8 next year and, thanks
> > to Adobe Labs, we should be able to tell long before
> > this new version hits the streets. But based on where
> > the platform is today, I must stand firm in my
> > recommendation that newcomers to web development look
> > elsewhere, at least for now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Reply to DFWCFUG:
> > [email protected]
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> > List Archives:
> >
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> > DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> > www.HostMySite.com
> > www.teksystems.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Everhart
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Blogging @ http://ev.instantspot.com/blog/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Reply to DFWCFUG:
> > [email protected]
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> > List Archives:
> >
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> > DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> > www.HostMySite.com
> > www.teksystems.com/
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reply to DFWCFUG:
> [email protected]
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
> List Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
> http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
> DFWCFUG Sponsors:
> www.HostMySite.com
> www.teksystems.com/
>
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.HostMySite.com
www.teksystems.com/
