How about a somewhat natural path, one based on Cold Fusion? Anyone have any ideas on that? I would like to stay with Cold Fusion if possible...
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:33 AM To: Spectra-Talk Subject: RE: Spectra Trial I'm not certain that there is a natural upgrade path between any content management systems. That is just the path which people are trying to put in front of us, even though it will cost millions of dollars when everything is said and done. Bob Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/06/2003 11:51 AM Please respond to spectra-talk To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: RE: Spectra Trial Is Interwoven a natural upgrade path from Spectra? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:23 AM To: Spectra-Talk Subject: RE: Spectra Trial 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 ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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.
