]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us?)
Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't
understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of
shear frustration.
-Matt
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: shared hosting security (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us?)
Read the rest of the thread leading up to it. If you still can't
understand why I was referring to security, then I will submit out of
shear
On Wednesday 03 Sep 2003 19:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some of us dont know what that is matt.
a lot of us dont know java maybe dont have time to learn it.
a lot of us need cffile. gawd knows i do:)
I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but uses
Java's i/o
I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but
uses
Java's i/o layer inside.
CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 14:53 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
I'm sure somewhere there must be a cf_file that works like cffile, but
uses
Java's i/o layer inside.
CFMX compiles CFML into Java, so cffile in fact just uses java.io.File.
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
thing.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
thing.
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which is
Thomas Chiverton wrote:
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 15:32 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
Right.
But if your hosting provider has wiped out cffile ... ?
Then I am sure they won't let you install a CFX that does the same
thing.
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is
of the To-Do list.
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't think they'd have any choice.
Of course, what they should do, is provide a cf_file which
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Better yet, why can't MM add some hosting-friendly options to the server global
settings so that they can address a need for a major customer segment?
Does a list of potential options exist? If we don't ask as a group with a unified
voice
This topic has been overloaded with comments, debates, etc. If you have
something to post of technical merit, PLEASE post it with a subject that
reflects the contents.
Thank you
p.s. debating semantics is NOT of technical merit for CF-Talk and should be
taken to CF-OT.
Sean wrote:
Maybe I'm confused... but doesn't sandboxing cover the requirements adressed here?
Yes.
Admittedly? if you're dealing with non enterprise licences you don't have
sandboxes...
I bet that if you know a bit about Java you can write your own
.policy files and hack Sandbox
-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
For me, I wouldn't at the moment just because I'm very happy where I am
(CrystalTech).
However BlueDragon has the definite potential to bring CF hosting prices
down significantly (one
version of CF are they using? If it's Pro/Standard and not Enterprise,
don't walk, but run away as fast as you can.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us
There's no such thing as a free lunch
I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty
penny and are not easy to cover without passing some of the cost on to
customers. It also makes me wonder why they use the term FREE and not
included when describing their plans.
people ask the right questions when they look for
hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list.
-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There's
sure people ask the right questions when they look for
hosting. I look forward to seeing that BD hosting list.
-Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Foti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us
://www.cfxhosting.com/Plans/s_cfxadvancedVPS.cfm
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us? )
I know this has been covered before but has there been any
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote:
We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox
security to prevent any accidents ;-)
How does Sandbox Security protect you from accidents with COM
objects like the FSO?
Jochem
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new
for us? )
Dan Phillips (CFXHosting.com) wrote:
We let customers use it on our advanced plans. We are running sandbox
security to prevent any accidents ;-)
How does Sandbox Security protect you from accidents
Message -
From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There's no such thing as a free lunch
I would be leery of *free* CF and SQL Server, both of those cost a pretty
penny
://www.blinex.com/products/charting
--
-Original Message-
From: Oliver Cookson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for
us
==
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| There's
Message-
From: Ryan Kime [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 September 2003 16:36
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
That's a $10 a month difference and they list out versions they use. I
see that pricing as more agreeable for both sides and I think it's
great
: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never had a CF
related problem that wasn't fixed within 15 minutes of it being found (and I
can count how many issues on one hand).
I used the word free
Matt Liotta wrote:
Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't affect the insecurity of a
CFMX installation for shared hosting. For example...
cfscript
badThing = CreateObject(java, a.BadThing);
// is the same as...
foo = ;
clazz = foo.getClass();
clazz =
==
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
| Whether
I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked
only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a
CFMX instance.
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Matt Liotta wrote:
Whether cfobject is enabled or not doesn't
: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:40 am
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
Probably correct, but any shared hosting provider would probably
immediatelyclose your account upon the appearance of code such as
that - All of them do
have Terms of Service
Matt Liotta wrote:
I have been able to successfully create a trojan that can be invoked
only using Java reflection such as below and easily installed into a
CFMX instance.
You mean as in uploaded a .jar and added it to the class path
etc? Wouldn't that require write permissions to the JVM
CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath
it uses.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
~|
Archives:
, September 03, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I used the word free.they use the word included
Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt
Why should they use Enterprise if it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill databases,
plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at the hosting
company would even have a clue about what's going on.
Not unless you are running CF as root/system.
Matt Liotta wrote:
CFMX is more than happy to give you permission to change the classpath
it uses.
That is not my experience. If the CF MX base directory is
configured to be read-only, CF MX will not write there. But with
the current bug in the way sandboxes are inherited to lower
If you remove CFMX's ability to change the classpath then you would
also remove my ability to change it. However, that is not the general
configuration used by hosting companies.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| I used the word free.they use the word included
|
| Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
|
| http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt
|
|
| Why should they use Enterprise
: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: CFObject in shared host? (Was: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us? )
| An unscrupulous person could easily reformat a server's hard drive, kill
databases, plant viruses, and do all sorts of nasty things way before anybody at
the hosting company
are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| I used the word free.they use the word included
People who don't know Java :)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wednesday
Matt,
Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in Coldfusion MX?
Thanks,
-Brad
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| I used the word free.they use the word included
|
| Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
|
| http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt
|
|
| Why should
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote:
Most Shared providers disable
,
Where would one find documenation on who to use java.io.file in
Coldfusion MX?
Thanks,
-Brad
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile
:)
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| I used the word free.they use the word included
|
| Semantics, I know, but here is the page I am referring to:
|
| http://www.uniserve.com/bus/usa/web/rates_glance.php?c=nt
]
www.navtrak.net
office 410.548.2337
fax 410.860.2337
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
some of us dont know what that is matt.
a lot of us dont know java
-Original Message-
FB From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FB Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
FB To: CF-Talk
FB Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
FB Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
FB -Matt
FB On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12
: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Who needs cffile or cfdirectory when you can use use java.io.File?
-Matt
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 02:12 PM, Doug White wrote:
Most Shared providers disable CFFILE and CFDIRECTORY anyway
==
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| I used the word free.they use
File system access is not required for there to be a vulnerability. You can
do things like grab sessions from other applications running on the same
server and modify the sessions. Anyone running an e-commerce app on a
shared host and using session variables is suceptible to tampering by
someone
service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Kime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
| I used the word free.they use the word included
|
| Semantics, I know
Message-
| From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:07 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
|
|
| Well Ryan they are absolutely great and in 5 years I have never
had a CF
| related problem that wasn't fixed within 15
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw~ please read all my message as well
i cant read it if it aint there
I think he did, and it showed the messages were there. You just
have to scroll down in your own message, you have quoted the
entire thread. Or use the archive.
Jochem
PROTECTED]
Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats
/morpheus/blog
Yahoo IM : morpheus
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Matt Blatchley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Well, since I can't afford
Webapper Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper Web Application Specialists
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't
Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper Web Application Specialists
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
I don't need to stand up
: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Shared hosting doesn't help cost issues when the application is
destined for an Intranet since by definition the application needs to
be hosted internally.
-Matt
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 12:01 AM, Raymond Camden wrote:
I don't need to stand up
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
That is certainly a valid criticism. Although, New Atlanta has stated
many times that they aren't trying to compete with Macromedia for
customers, but go after customers that Macromedia is about to lose
because of platform standardization. In that regard
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Your definition may not be so cut and dry.
If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it
may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive
(although they may be doing it anyway and have never done
If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive it
may be likely that the cost of managing an Intranet is also prohibitive
(although they may be doing it anyway and have never done a cost
analysis).
I'll agree with that, but certainly the use of certain software e.g. CF
kinda like buying a kia:)
it tries to be the real thing but its not, will always be a step behind.
i dont even do serious programming but no thanks, i'll take the real deal.
you guys are making $100 + an hour, you can fit it in.
Its up too you to show the client where it saves them money so they
By that logic, you must be running CFMX on top of WebSphere, running on
top of an S/390.
In the J2EE world there are many vendors all with different offerings
and different prices. Certainly you wouldn't avoid using JRun just
because it is much cheaper than WebSphere or WebLogic. We CFML
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
If your clients are small enough where the cost of CF is prohibitive
it
may be likely that the cost of managing
Specialists
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Do such places exist?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of us
would move our site(s
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta directly in that
regard. However, I am sure that many hosting companies would step up to
the plate if the need exists. I wonder if the free version of
BlueDragon could be used
Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact New Atlanta
ICQ #117650823
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 2, 2003 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I am not aware of anyone who is offering shared BlueDragon hosting at
this point. You may want to contact
I knew I hadn't dreamed up the whole thing...
:-)
- Yves -
-Original Message-
From: Vince Bonfanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 2, 2003 1:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
Yes, we're working with several hosting companies
-Original Message-
From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?)
I thought that earlier this summer hosting partners were to
be announced, but I do
to their customers. Stay tuned...
Vince Bonfanti
New Atlanta Communications, LLC
http://www.newatlanta.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: BD hosting (was Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us
.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Mike Brunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:28 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
There is another question in the whole Bluedragon debate. How many of
us
would move our site(s) to a hosting
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote:
Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that?
The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .net compiler.
--
Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.)
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email:
, September 01, 2003 8:49 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 21:00 pm, Matt Blatchley wrote:
Blue Dragonquite impressed. How do they get away with that?
The same way the Mono folks 'get away' with writing their own .net compiler.
--
Tom Chiverton
but it's not the same to me.
Ben
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Something you have to remember is that Dreamweaver was quite popular
before
Come on Matt you supposed to be logic man. That is not a
linear statement. It would depend on the number of installs,
and how large the sector it is art of grows. It could just
have had such a large base that it would never need another
copy sold in order to retain a majority, even if it
with, especially because of their simplicity to implement.
/shrug
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Sean A Corfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 11
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 15:15 US/Pacific, Massimo, Tiziana e
Federica wrote:
Hmm, but DWMX includes help/reference material for CF,
DWMX's reference panel is a joke :-)
It seems designed for a PDA, it's hard to read and you can't copy/past
from
it.
Hmm, I'd never noticed the
Hmm, I'd never noticed the cut'n'paste issue until just now. Guess I
rely much more on the LiveDocs version and the local HTML version (the
latter is particularly nice in CFMX 6.1!).
I use LiveDocs most of the times too.
Since you are playing with Mach II, get a copy of the DTD for the
More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and
consumer devices.
I'm not saying networking companies are doing away with SNMP or other
interfaces, but most are building or planning on building web
interfaces for the products. JRun has some nice OEM agreements with
networking
Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Also when talking about how much of the market share CF has, you have
to
look at the installed base, which I know is huge. I mean hell, how
many
4.5.1 installs
Matt Liotta wrote:
More likely SNMP or telnet/SSH. Unless you mean small SOHO and
consumer devices.
I'm not saying networking companies are doing away with SNMP or other
interfaces, but most are building or planning on building web
interfaces for the products.
You were saying (..)
or more and ensuring that your new client will be coming back to CF, and
likely yourself, for it's future solutions.
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats
Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web
interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the
equipment that has more options as a digital watch.
I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly
have web interfaces. I am talking about enterprise
Matt Liotta wrote:
Maybe SOHO and consumer devices are manged through a web
interface, but SNMP and telnet/SSH reigns supreme in the
equipment that has more options as a digital watch.
I'm not talking about SOHO and consumer devices although they certainly
have web interfaces. I am talking
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all
management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through
an HTTP interface. My point in case it wasn't clear is most networking
equipment now includes a web interface for management purposes. I made
this only to
Matt Liotta wrote:
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that my position is that all
management and monitoring of a networking device need be done through
an HTTP interface.
I am not suggesting that that is your position. I am quoting you
on your position that (..) networking equipment (..)
I hope my last response cleared up what I was trying to say. If not,
please email me off list and I'd be happy clarify my points more
without boring the list.
-Matt
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 12:34 PM, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
Matt Liotta wrote:
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that
Speaking for myself, I do question the commitment from a
marketing standpoint for CF.
You said that they wished to target the PHP and ASP market,
but this doesn't explain why there was no mention of CF
specific products in their initial marketing campaign.
That contradicts a company
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
For those of you who question the commitment to CF, um, hello? Did you
miss 6.1? I for one think that CFMX 6.1 is a very significant upgrade,
you may feel otherwise and are entitled to do so. Regardless, investing
as we did in CF and then releasing
Remember the additional tab that came out in Studio 4.0 or 4.5 or something
like that. I think it was called Design or Layout or something like that.
Everyone quickly dismissed it since it caused mayhem in the code. I was
always hoping MM would supply just the page layout engine for studio to
Why do I hear a yet at the end of that?
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
It's like New Atlanta came out with an IDE for CFML and in the next
revision
Enhanced Find and Replace these are all asthetic
enhancements.
I don't think Find Replace is an aesthetic enhancement - most designers
don't care too much about that stuff. One of my biggest Dreamweaver pet
peeves is how Find Replace currently works.
Siteless File Editing doesn't help me
Why do I hear a yet at the end of that?
I don't know, why? I can't recall ever hearing or seeing a New Atlanta
employee mention they have plans for an IDE. I'm personally looking
forward to what they do with BlueDragon.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
For those of you who question the commitment to CF, um, hello? Did you
miss 6.1? I for one think that CFMX 6.1 is a very significant upgrade,
you may feel otherwise and are entitled to do so. Regardless,
investing
as we did in CF
]
*
-Original Message-
From: Plunkett, Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DWMX 2004 - Whats new
I don't think Find Replace is an aesthetic enhancement - most designers
don't care too much about that stuff. One of my biggest Dreamweaver pet
peeves is how Find Replace currently works.
Now I am curious, DW's Find Replace, even in DW MX, is way more powerful
than HS/CF Studio and has some
: RE: DWMX 2004 - Whats new for us?
Right on Ben!
I seriously just don't get this thread at all. Never once in my life
have I ever noticed a difference in coding speed based on the IDE I was
using. I can just see the expression on my boss's face if I'd say sorry
I missed the deadline, but my
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
