While I agree with you that Macromedia should support
Apache 2.0 for CF 5, I disagree with your post. You
seem to imply that a normal IT shop wouldn't want to
upgrade to CFMX until after it matures for a couple of
years, yet you want to upgrade to Apache 2.0, which is
certainly
The MM Partners office informs me that
MM has no plans to supply a mod_coldfusion.so
for CF 5.0/Linux/Apache 2.0
'Not enough demand' they say.
So know we know MM's policy on one-release-
back support. They don't do what's right: they
do what will not get them punished by losing
too
On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 12:34 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
From the perspective of a profit-oriented company, isn't that what's
right?
After all, if they do something like that for a small number of
customers,
they're expending some effort that perhaps could be better spent on
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Justin Greene [mailto:24760158988311636;spamex.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: MM Has No Plans to Support Apache 2.0
This is a particularly sore
-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta;r337.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX and Apache 1.3.x on *nix (was RE: MM Has No Plans to
Support
Apache 2.0)
You may not be wrong in your lack of support of new versions of CF. It
has become clear me and many others
On Monday, Nov 11, 2002, at 20:40 US/Pacific, Dave Watts wrote:
Security. It doesn't seem that clear that emerging
Apache security issues are going to be fixed in the
1.3 base as well as the 2.n base.
Given the percentage of Apache users sticking with 1.3.xx, I don't see
that
as a serious
The MM Partners office informs me that
MM has no plans to supply a mod_coldfusion.so
for CF 5.0/Linux/Apache 2.0
'Not enough demand' they say.
So know we know MM's policy on one-release-
back support. They don't do what's right: they
do what will not get them punished by losing
too many
Greg Bullough wrote:
The MM Partners office informs
Then maybe the cf-partners list is the right one for your post.
Jochem
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
in comparison to Apache 1.3.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
-Original Message-
From: Greg Bullough [mailto:gwb;outofchaos.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: MM Has No Plans to Support Apache 2.0
Of course, the logical distinction is that an Apache upgrade is free...
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta;r337.com]
While I agree with you that Macromedia should support Apache 2.0 for CF
5, I disagree with your post. You seem to imply that a normal IT shop
wouldn't
, November 11, 2002 9:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: MM Has No Plans to Support Apache 2.0
Of course, the logical distinction is that an Apache upgrade is
free...
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta;r337.com]
While I agree with you that Macromedia should support
Free or not, it's still a business decision that should have been made.
Don't upgrade to something you know that's not going to support your
server side. I have to agree with Matt, I stated this myself last week
as well.
CFMX is technically free if one had a subscription.
~Todd
On Mon,
Which isnt free because you have to pay thousand+ extra
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: MM Has No Plans to Support Apache 2.0
Free or not, it's still a business decision that should have
On Monday, Nov 11, 2002, at 06:38 US/Pacific, Greg Bullough wrote:
So know we know MM's policy on one-release-
back support. They don't do what's right: they
do what will not get them punished by losing
too many customers.
A lot of people are staying with Apache 1.3.x because many
+ extra
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: MM Has No Plans to Support Apache 2.0
Free or not, it's still a business decision that should have been made.
Don't upgrade to something you
At 07:43 AM 11/11/02 -0800, Sean A Corfield wrote:
Since you seem determined to stick with CF5, I can't
see why you'd want to introduce the risk of upgrading to Apache 2.0.x?
Your criticism is illogical.
Security. It doesn't seem that clear that emerging Apache security
issues are going to be
But, apparently security is being address otherwise 1.3.26 would have been
the last latest build. 1.3.27 is now the next new build. I would think
that Apache 2 runs the risk of finding new security holes at the moment
than Apache 1.3.x - that's just my opinion tho.
~Todd
On Mon, 11 Nov
On Monday, Nov 11, 2002, at 12:17 US/Pacific, Greg Bullough wrote:
Security. It doesn't seem that clear that emerging Apache security
issues are going to be fixed in the 1.3 base as well as the 2.n base.
Well, we're in the process of implementing Apache 1.3.27 which was just
released to
Security. It doesn't seem that clear that emerging
Apache security issues are going to be fixed in the
1.3 base as well as the 2.n base.
Given the percentage of Apache users sticking with 1.3.xx, I don't see that
as a serious concern.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
good support for the customer base, which ultimatly makes us
buy the upgrades willingly.
Justin
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:mliotta;r337.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: MM Has No Plans to Support Apache 2.0
While I agree with you
20 matches
Mail list logo
