Re: WebDNA 5.0 Questions
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 47796
interpreted = N
texte = I kind of agree here. With the Sandbox it's going to be a nightmare moving all this. So I'm not going to. I will be putting out the 3000(that's 3,000,000.00CDN), and setting up a new server to handle this, and only using it for new, or revised business. So now instead of the 3,000 I have a 10,000 bill, but with the current directory setup, and the fact that this is used for more then just commerce, it's far easier for us to start as new, which is double or triple the investment.This is going to be an extremely difficult sell to board.... :-(But at this point I really have no choice, as it's getting busy again....Rob On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Alex McCombie wrote:> On 2/14/03 6:15 PM, Doug Deck
wrote: > >> Commerce Edition. ....... Commerce Edition 5.0 is also a >> single-website >> license. > Commerce 4.x was unlimited. This huge back-peddle is exactly where I > think > the unjustifiable mistake is being made. > >> Obviously, someone currently >> hosting dozens or hundreds of websites on a single WebDNA license >> will want >> to consider Enterprise Edition; in addition to being able to host any >> number >> of websites, each one can be sandboxed, delivering greater value and >> security to the customer. > > A the risk of sounding ungrateful let me try to put into words my > ongoing > concern with this policy. > > I am all too aware of the need to have WebDNA more widely > accepted. We > have tried to swim against the tide at every opportunity to capture > traditional (ASP< ORACLE< PHP) projects and migrate them to WebDNA. I > would > say our success at that has been moderate. As a result, we have driven > the > sale of WebDNA licenses for the customers that chose to host on their > own > (apart from us). > > However, the majority of of our WebDNA projects have fallen to > in-house > hosting and as such have all fallen under our primary license. This is > further aggravated as I have several (dozens) of internal projects that > currently 'live' in different directories under our primary server. So > my > main directory is weighed down with a combination of paying clients and > non-paying internal projects. > > Along comes sandbox. Primarily it offers what we have all > identified as > a need for years - a secure environment between directories. > Unfortunately > this policy (assuming it is based on directories under the same server) > takes that need and slaps it with a new price tag. > > Now don't get me wrong, we fully expected a new price tag to go > from the > 4.x environment to the 5.x. In fact I have prepared our people for the > typical $1000 we have seen in the past. In the true sense of the > upgrade I > am referring to the current 'unlimited' license we own for 4.x > (unlimited is > a word specifically used by the preference files associated with the > serial > number in use). Instead, in order to keep that 'unlimited' use, and > not be > relegated to an outdated version (for which support will grow > increasingly > more of an issue), we are being asked to pay $3000 which if memory > serves > was the price of our original software (not including the multiple > upgrade > fees along the way which nearly totals the original amount over again). > > I am failing to see how this could be considered reasonable. > > One might say, Listen Alex, you paid 3k for the software years > ago, > having to pay that again years later for a dramatically improved > package > isnt unreasonable. I would whole-heartedly agree with that statement > sans > one point... The reason we continued to upgrade at every version for > the > software was 2 fold. > 1. To benefit from the new features. > 2. To keep ourselves out of the position of having to jump multiple > versions which almost always costs nearly as much as the original > purchase. > > > Alex > > ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
I kind of agree here. With the Sandbox it's going to be a nightmare moving all this. So I'm not going to. I will be putting out the 3000(that's 3,000,000.00CDN), and setting up a new server to handle this, and only using it for new, or revised business. So now instead of the 3,000 I have a 10,000 bill, but with the current directory setup, and the fact that this is used for more then just commerce, it's far easier for us to start as new, which is double or triple the investment.This is going to be an extremely difficult sell to board.... :-(But at this point I really have no choice, as it's getting busy again....Rob On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Alex McCombie wrote:> On 2/14/03 6:15 PM, Doug Deck wrote: > >> Commerce Edition. ....... Commerce Edition 5.0 is also a >> single-website >> license. > Commerce 4.x was unlimited. This huge back-peddle is exactly where I > think > the unjustifiable mistake is being made. > >> Obviously, someone currently >> hosting dozens or hundreds of websites on a single WebDNA license >> will want >> to consider Enterprise Edition; in addition to being able to host any >> number >> of websites, each one can be sandboxed, delivering greater value and >> security to the customer. > > A the risk of sounding ungrateful let me try to put into words my > ongoing > concern with this policy. > > I am all too aware of the need to have WebDNA more widely > accepted. We > have tried to swim against the tide at every opportunity to capture > traditional (ASP< ORACLE< PHP) projects and migrate them to WebDNA. I > would > say our success at that has been moderate. As a result, we have driven > the > sale of WebDNA licenses for the customers that chose to host on their > own > (apart from us). > > However, the majority of of our WebDNA projects have fallen to > in-house > hosting and as such have all fallen under our primary license. This is > further aggravated as I have several (dozens) of internal projects that > currently 'live' in different directories under our primary server. So > my > main directory is weighed down with a combination of paying clients and > non-paying internal projects. > > Along comes sandbox. Primarily it offers what we have all > identified as > a need for years - a secure environment between directories. > Unfortunately > this policy (assuming it is based on directories under the same server) > takes that need and slaps it with a new price tag. > > Now don't get me wrong, we fully expected a new price tag to go > from the > 4.x environment to the 5.x. In fact I have prepared our people for the > typical $1000 we have seen in the past. In the true sense of the > upgrade I > am referring to the current 'unlimited' license we own for 4.x > (unlimited is > a word specifically used by the preference files associated with the > serial > number in use). Instead, in order to keep that 'unlimited' use, and > not be > relegated to an outdated version (for which support will grow > increasingly > more of an issue), we are being asked to pay $3000 which if memory > serves > was the price of our original software (not including the multiple > upgrade > fees along the way which nearly totals the original amount over again). > > I am failing to see how this could be considered reasonable. > > One might say, Listen Alex, you paid 3k for the software years > ago, > having to pay that again years later for a dramatically improved > package > isnt unreasonable. I would whole-heartedly agree with that statement > sans > one point... The reason we continued to upgrade at every version for > the > software was 2 fold. > 1. To benefit from the new features. > 2. To keep ourselves out of the position of having to jump multiple > versions which almost always costs nearly as much as the original > purchase. > > > Alex > > ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
mmilists
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Country & Ship-to address & other fields ? (1997)
WC1.6 to WC2 date formatting -FIXED! (1997)
SiteEdit NewFile.html ? (1997)
autocommit problem (1998)
update on wn searching (1997)
searchable list archive (1997)
unable to launch acgi in WebCat (1997)
Projects & Contractors (1997)
Striping Characters (1998)
Reversed words (1997)
Setting up WebCatalog with Retail Pro data (1996)
[WebDNA] Bug list (2011)
All choices on IE different than Netscape (1997)
[Announce] Newest Commerce Site based on WebCatalog (1997)
emailer on Windows Beta 18 (1997)
RE: Tax and ShipCost Problem (1997)
in header include files? (1998)
Search or Lookup before Append (1998)
WebDNA Mail issues (2002)
WebDelivery downloads alias, not original ? (1997)