http://coldfusion.com logo
Join Slack
Powered by
<@U071G1PU0> included this in recent emails, but I...
# adobe
d
@carehart included this in recent emails, but I don't think I understand:
Copy code
News about the subscription change: while not a post from Adobe (who did announce it at CF Summit), here is a post from the Intergral (FusionReactor) folks: Secure Your ColdFusion Perpetual License Before Adobe's Subscription-Only Switch
(Yes I know that Intergral offer has passed, just trying to understand.) I may not be on top of this, not really my domain, but has Adobe ever had a subscription that covers future major releases? We'll always want to be on at least the next to most recent major release, if only for security reasons. If that's the case, what's the point of a subscription?
c
Well, first (for context, for the sake of others reading this) you quoted a single bullet point, and those bullet points were preceded by a paragraph introducing them, including this phrase: "No news has been shared to indicate when the final version would be released. And while Adobe doesn't ever share info about pricing or editions before the release, but note that they did announce at CF Summit in Vegas (in Oct) that CF2025 would be sold only via subscription model (more below)."* And the email was a notification of my blog post (sent to subscribers) at https://www.carehart.org/blog/2025/1/8/coldfusion_2025_prerelease_resources Second, note the key point: the new licensing model appears to be subscription ONLY. So yes, previously one could buy a cf "support" plan, which as a subscription included the next major release, that was an option--that could be added to a perpetual license. The change is that it seems a perpetual license will no longer be an option. Big news for some. That said, some already license cf on a subscription basis: those with an "ETLA" and those running the Adobe AMIs for CF as offered in the AWS and Azure marketplaces. Maybe Mark or others with more detail will chime in, but again Adobe is generally mum on such details before a release.
d
Thank you Charlie, and apologies for quoting only a small bit of your full post and email, going for minimal 🙂
👍 1
p
Move to Lucee, the end.
c
So trite
😎 1
👍 1
Ok, Dave. But my response was driven by your starting out by saying you didn't "understand" what the phrase you quoted was conveying. While you were going for brevity, it seemed you'd missed the key previous point. And especially since other readers would lack that context it seemed imperative for me to provide the rest. :-) No offense taken or intended.
As for my reply to Patrick ("so trite"), I'll elaborate a bit now that I have a bit of time: my snark was about his "the end" conclusion. I don't deny Lucee brings value to (and saves money for) many. Same should come with the planned boxlang cfml compatibility. But to say moving to Lucee is the clear answer to concerns over licensing is simplistic. It's just not true that "all cf apps can be moved to it" successfully. Heck, today alone in the Lucee dev forum there are discussions of things that Cf supports that Lucee does not. And I get it: the folks behind Lucee (and boxlang) can declare as "stupid" some thing that Adobe allowed or enabled. It's just that for some people, they find their apps to have many such things-- and it's not always some esoteric thing. (AND they may have inherited that code from others, so they're not "to blame for making such a choice".) So for them, saving money on licensing might be wiped out by the migration effort. As such, it's not "the end" of the conversation. More than that, for people that do run CF, the kind of info I share (like that above) is simply news for them to consume and consider. It seems a shame that so often in social media, attempts to share such news are met with opinion pieces. Most topics are not easily communicated in any single tweet-level response, so when they call for response it leads to long discussions--at least if people are going to have more perspective. Sincerely, if you'd instead said simply "or consider moving to Lucee", I would have left it alone. But adding, "the end"...well, that prompted this missive. People can disagree, of course. But let's please at least clarify our facts and our opinions.
m
Thanks for the ACF love here Charlie. ❤️ I'd be happy to cover why going to subscription is an amazing thing, and is not the end of the world as we know it, if anyone would like. Patrick, that kind of antagonistic statement doesn't do the community any good. ACF & Lucee are two separate use cases, and rarely overlap. Both have their strengths. And weaknesses. And, this may surprise you, but if someone was on ACF and had to move, for whatever valid reason, I would wholeheartedly support them moving to Lucee vs some other platform/language. Because while I am the Adobe ColdFusion evangelist, I've just generally been a CF developer for a HELL of a lot longer, and have done development in both (sometimes at the very same time lol). And keeping someone in the CF community is my goal. Growing the community is my goal. Instead of disparaging "the competition", let's leverage our strengths to build.
❤️ 2
👍 2
c
Thanks, Mark. On your first point, it's not clear whether you mean you'd elaborate if anyone asked privately, or if you were asking "if anyone here would be interested in a public reply" with more on the licensing change. I'm a "yes" to either. :-)
p
@carehart I am just making a point that corporate greed has shifted to insane with the subscription world we live in just to keep their pockets lined. And yes Lucee needs better support and features and I understand a LOT of folks cant simply move there but should take consideration and insights into the open source world. And “the end” was just trying to be funny but realistic if the choice was made to just move and not have to worry about paying up every year for the same thing that may have not changed at all. @Mark Takata (Adobe) and again, wasnt trying to be against the CF world (been here since v3 and love it) but just over corporate greed.
c
If you're equating "corporate greed" with capitalism, then this could explode into a debate that goes on for days or even years. Heck, even just debating open source vs closed (let alone open source vs commercial) is its own pandora's box. Let's not open that. Again, my quibble was with "the end". Your opinion is now clear. It seems we could leave it at that...though somehow I suspect others will feel otherwise. Some topics are just like honey to a bear. Again this was a news item Dave was sharing, and a question of fact he was asking about. Can't we leave it at that, folks, at least for this thread? :-)
👍 2
🐧 1
e
I will say that greed is good. That being said. Hopefully, adobe will have a license that has blogger-friendly pricing. -- I know, I can wish.
c
That was certainly the opinion of the character Gordon Gekko from the 80's movie, Wall Street. Of course, many will disagree. But I do certainly agree with your last point: I look forward to hearing also if the subscription model will be more container-friendly, and whether it might even bring an end to the Standard vs Enterprise distinction (given that the AMIs are already only offered as Enterprise). Then there's the simpler question of what the price will be. But again all these are things that Adobe typically doesn't discuss before the final release, so I suspect we will have to keep waiting.
e
I can toss my opinion in a sea of views that Adobe should take the Satya Nadella approach to Coldfusion that Microsoft took towards Visual Studio. We could argue the ROI on their licensing model changes, but in the end, their stock prices and the continued popularity of their service offerings speak volumes for how the approach of digital crack for crack addicts has worked.
c
And a vast and sometimes choppy sea that is. 🙂 But yeah, money makes a lot of the world go 'round...as does freedom of choice, fortunately.
👍 1
3 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by