I haven't heard any rumors, nor am I trying to start any. It is just a
wish. Maybe someone at MM is listening? We would love to be able to
(within license) extend the codebase, redo everything with CFC's and have
our own installer package. Not for resale, but for internal use within our
company. In fact, we would most likely be willing to pay MM for the right
to do so, or buy licenses for additional copies to stay legal. It would
still be significantly cheaper than switching to Interwoven, which is what
higher-ups here are pushing.
"Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/06/2003 10:54 AM
Please respond to spectra-talk
To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
do you think that will happen? we have asked for that for ages!?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 06 February 2003 15:38
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
Totally agree on SiteMinder, huge mistake for MM.
I think the biggest error they made was how Spectra was marketed and
pricing. Look at how much the competing products cost, for example
Interwoven. Spectra was too cheap to be perceived as a player in content
management. If they set the code free to customers maybe it could end up
being something really solid.
Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/06/2003 10:32 AM
Please respond to spectra-talk
To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
> My point was about Figleaf bashing something that they
> still offer paid training for.
I apologize. It wasn't my intent to bash Spectra per se, and I don't speak
for Fig Leaf Software in that regard.
> I like and respect Dave and Steve a great deal, but
> remember how Figleaf aggressively pushed Spectra to
> clients when it came out. We were one of those who
> shelled out money for the product, training and
> consulting services, based on their glowing
> recommendations.
Well, to be perfectly honest, the way I see it is that Spectra had the
makings of a potentially great product. To elaborate a bit, I think that
for
a product of that complexity, it usually takes a couple of major versions
to
get where you really want to go in the long run. When I looked at the
initial version, I thought "this will be really great by, say, version 3".
In that case, it makes sense to start using it, and as it gets better, you
get the benefits of that improvement. At the time, I thought it was as
good
or better than competing products, and would be even better in the future.
Of course, that isn't how things worked out, but that was certainly my
expectation at the time.
So, anyway, I'm sorry for making a smart remark off-the-cuff; I just
figured
there were enough SiteMinder veterans who felt the same way, I guess.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
