http://coldfusion.com logo
Join Slack
Powered by
Looks like the subscription model is now live on <...
# adobe
j
Looks like the subscription model is now live on https://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion-family.html for ColdFusion. I didn't see an easy to view price matrix but it appears that the publicly available subscriptions are as follows ( if this was already posted, sorry for the double post ). • ColdFusion Standard ( 2 Core ) $760/yr • ColdFusion Enterprise ( 8 Core ) $2,930/yr @Mark Takata (Adobe) are there going to be any incentives for anyone that purchased 2023?
👍 1
I take that back in regards to pricing. It is available in the following page. I previously just clicked on the buy buttons to see the price in the cart. https://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion-family/buying-guide.html
CleanShot 2025-02-25 at 10.13.37@2x.png
p
2-core…wtf, no server level processor in modern age has 2 cores…$$$$$$ just to run ACF. Hasnt been a XEON processor with 2-cores since 2011-2015 or so…10 years ago. Its a marketing game there, looks affordable until you see your 32 core baseline single processor machine not to mention you have 2 procs, so 64… so $24,320/YEAR to run standard vs the 2-3k one-time charge per SOCKET for it. I smell a major shift to Lucee or others in this move.
g
where do you see the information about 2-core?
s
does seem like an unusual time to add barriers to entry, but one assumes they know their customers (versus some of us who haven't been their customers for years anyway)
j
@Patrick I've never understood the core restrictions. @garciadev when you go purchase it is in the name for the product in the cart.
👀 1
p
Thats what @jc said
j
CleanShot 2025-02-25 at 10.42.44@2x.png
CleanShot 2025-02-25 at 10.43.09@2x.png
g
Ahhh, I didn't make it that far yet
p
That means you are out of license if your physical box has a server with say 32 cores. You that that price to meet the number of cores in your machine. So for 32/2x760 to be “in license”
j
@garciadev I made sure to cross my T's and dot my I's before I posted LOL
g
you always do!
t
the core limit isn't new though... Standard has had a 2-core limit as long as I can remember. I ran into a bug related to it in CF9.
p
was 8 previously….
j
Yes it has been there for a while @Tim and it has never made sense to me.
p
Is that clear now @jc?
j
My question would be does ACF only use 2 of the cores of your machine, so you don't have to worry about it ( which I would assume it should ) and you are within the core limits. Or ..... do you have to do something to make it valid ... or even worse buy enough licenses to match the number of cores of the machine you are using it on.
t
They now only use 2 cores even if you have more.
p
Typically large corps like this say, if the server physically has X cores you pay the fee regardless. Microsoft does for SQL server for example.
t
The bug with CF9 that i had was that it would attempt to give work to the other processors, and then just ignore the results from them.
it was a pia.
j
ok then buying a license for Standard to run on any machine is valid as you only plan to use what is available by Standard.
pia?
g
Pain in tuckus?
💯 1
p
@Tim where are you finding that ACF only utilizes X cores max??
t
experimentation.
p
Read the legal, bet they dont include theoretical stuff
j
ahh ... sorry I am not always up to par with acronyms
@Patrick you saw the updated EULA?
g
You may know it better as PITA, but PIA is 25% more efficient at runtime
😂 4
j
Ohh .. it took 1 additional core that add the T. @Tim has learned his lesson to be more efficient 🤣
😆 1
p
Referring to EULA*-* Each Standard license covers up to two cores. For instance, deploying ColdFusion Standard on a server with four cores would require two Standard licenses.
Not certain that is related to this latest version but there is usually a standard practice when billing by the cores; so I am leaning on that being the same
@Mark Takata (Adobe) share that EULA if ya could. Or clarify the core aspect for everyone.
r
Boxlang/Lucee looking real attractive right now
💯 2
m
Good lord, its barely 9am, and the fud has already started. I've barely managed to get through 1/2 this cup of coffee. Patrick, can't you at least gently slide me into the boiling water? OK, so point one, which has been made, MOST of this has already been a thing. What hasn't been a thing was using CF Standard on cloud officially. All of this "using CF on my local gaming machine with 128 cores" is just... come on. If you're doing that, I want to know what YOU'RE putting in your coffee. Standard is for small loads. 2 cores running in AWS is plenty. 8 cores has always been the thing for Enterprise. If you have a situation where that doesn't work, there's also per-application licenses, per-instance licenses, AMIs, VPS solutions, you can run CF in containers. If you just want to hate on CF, go for it, but at least bring something new here man.
p
I was just seeking clarity, so was I correct if your office server is say a 32 core…its not “how many cores is CF using” it is “I have to pay whatever my physical machine has”? And good morning Mark 🙂
m
And the "I guess I'll just go use Lucee!" thing is not the win you think it is. I LOVE Lucee. Y'all always forget I've been a CF dev for 28 years, not ACF (or MCF or AllaireCF only). But CF. Lucee has great use cases! But if you think you can just replace all ACF with Lucee, you actually don't know either platform. Period. Both are great in particular instances. Do you think the FBI is going to use Lucee though? An open source platform with no support, no way to get immediate security patches? No STIGs? Will any of the government do that? Pretty unlikely (it's happened, NASA used Lucee for a bit and I think it still does). Boxlang is cool, but completely untested in large scale enterprise for the moment. And, keep in mind, BL is NOT CF. It runs CF, but the idea is you refactor to BLL. Like, that's the point, it is billed as a new, better designed language. Essentially the equiv of moving to Spring, or Clojure. Or heck, Quarkus.
Good morning Patrick. 🙂 Yes, it is literally, "How many cores have you assigned for CF to use" not "How many cores are in the CPUs on this machine" but you DO have to do the assignments. Usually the easiest way is to run a VM (which honestly I would 100% do ANYWAY in a situation like that)
If you did just drop a standard on a bad-ass gaming rig and ran your business on it raw like that and got audited (which, honestly, I don't remember ever happening) we'd probably be like... yo, um, you need to change a few settings boss.
NOW. With ALL of that said. I am strongly advocating internally to alter the "core" strategy we have. It is archaic
What is "a core"? Right?
Even though Boeing's IT dept is fine with this (and Ford's, etc.) the issue is this thread, where regular users get scared and panic about the wording because we're Adobe and we're big and scary (not me, I'm a pussy cat lol)
h
From my vantage point, the 2 core limitation with Standard for small loads is pretty counter intuitive to its audience for folks that aren't in the cloud. If it's a small load, customers may want to limit the number of servers and try to put more services on a single box.
p
I am thinking of a real world scenario, customer runs a metal shop and running my CF app built for operations, but they also run their accounting and other misc biz related stuff all from the single unit in the office. 32-core, so is there a CFAdmin feature to say, “only use 2-cores” or ?
Microsoft’s SQL license is if your unit is running 32 core you are paying for 32 core period.
m
I think that's probably an edge case Patrick, but I think the solution (at least in Windows) would be to use the Hypervisor
r
I think the recommendation to run that app in a VM is still valid and should be strongly considered since you would want a webserver in a sandbox that cannot easily access the accounting and other misc biz apps if it got compromised
➕ 1
👍 1
m
Now, on Linux? I have no idea LOL
Rueben hit the nail on the head
r
linux you would use KVM or virtual box
m
You would want sandboxing and separation of access
Or less headache and use a cloud server that my AI agent builds for me LMAO
😆 1
p
But I want to see the EULA, what the legal buffoons are saying, not what is a theoretical stuff here.
j
Good morning @Mark Takata (Adobe) and welcome to the party ( well, you've been here over 20 minutes but still wanted to say hi ). Move to the East Coast and you won't be on that Pacific delay 🙂
😂 1
Blame the fud on the person that scheduled the email to go out early for us EST folks! 😂
m
Haha, JC you got a couch I could crash on? 😉
j
Hell yeah! You are always welcomed!
g
I think for you, JC would take the couch!
m
❤️
p
LMK about that EULA @Mark Takata (Adobe) thx
m
Patrick you can DL the trial and the first screen on the installer has the EULA. You don't actually have to complete the install (nor do you have to give a "real" email when DLing the trial. I can't copy/paste it here because it might get amended later, etc. Legal fun. But its totes right there (and an 'interesting' read). It looks exactly like the EULA from before honestly (though its huge and I imagine there were some changes, if only to add "2025" and the like. But read it and make your own determinations of course.
There does seem to be language about "the greater of" physical cores vs VM/affinity, but again I know I've seen this done. And I'm not sure exactly how you determine the number of physical cores in the cloud LOL. And it says a "computer" is a virtual or physical device. So if the total number of cores in a VM (a virtual device) is locked, does that count?
p
I imagine an updated esp if now everything shifts to subscription etc
m
That's it. Its 10:00am bourbon time. Can't drink all day unless you start in the morning. 🙃
🤣 1
🍻 2
p
I I could just house a server and say its my “cloud” and run a VM as suggested with 2-core and flip the bird? lol
r
that is technically accurate. it is a "private cloud"
bird-flipping optional
birds don't like to get flipped, esp in mid poop
m
You'd need the bird flip DLC though
Optional module.
Premium 😉
j
It's included in the subscription cost!
m
THAT'S TRUE haha
r
now I want to write a lucee app that does just that
m
Like reverse()?
But BirdFlip()?
I love it.
@garciadev new BoxLang module for @raymondcamden to build out? 😉
g
LOL
m
"Allows for highly scalable, efficient bird-flipping without fear of memory leaks, race conditions, or in-air collisions"
g
We appreciate the love. 😉
For @raymondcamden to really get excited, we'll have to pivot it to being cat based. We can call it 
Feline Fine
. 🐱
m
Cats DO always land on their feet. Perhaps some form of feline inversion would do here lol
r
all software is already cat based. it works when it wants to and randomly throws shit to the ground
☝️ 1
💯 2
🐈‍⬛ 1
😂 8
🙌🏻 1
r
not "FelineFloor()" ?
also - will be fine on it's own for days and then start screaming at you for attention at 3am
m
Oh I like that.
This reminds me of when I used to work for a CF Dev named Chinh. He would write little code snippets, like one that took the first letter of every word in a sentence and made it a capital called "ChinhUp()".
His last name was "Lam" and the other one he wrote was something that would cut off a string at a certain length and add ellipses. You guessed it, "LamChop()" LOL
Dude was hilarious.
@chinh haha actually he's here, hey Chinh! 🙂 ❤️
r
funny names - but the onboarding for learning those function names and uses would be tedious
m
haha yeah, but it was just him and I, and we'd been working together for decades by that point, on and off 🙂
I don't imagine those are still there with his now bigger team in place
r
I have a client right now that has code with variable names that are in german sometimes and english others and sometimes they have a word that doesn't translate, so I have no idea what it is representing
m
EEEK
g
True, I sometimes forget just how old you are. 😜
😂 1
m
Me too buddy, lol
g
Ok, how old WE are...
💯 1
m
I mean, I wasn't gonna call anyone out 😄
g
Speak up so I can hear you better
m
What's that sonny? lol
p
geeze this topic got way off thread
m
RIGHT. clears throat Wait, who we hatin on? Oh, actually I do have an on-topic suggestion for @jc regarding incentives/2023, etc. Shoot kishore@adobe.com an email asking about this. Like "Hey, bought 23 because we weren't sure on pricing, it was kind of scary, but it looks cool and would love to jump in on the sub, any way we can get incentivized to move early so we can use the new stuff and be on the sub?" kind of thing. I think there's talk of it, but as always, the more we hear from customers, especially long time ones, the better the internal guidance.
👍 1
Internally, there's been trepidation about whether folks would hesitate to come on to the subs early (new is scary, etc.) so it does benefit us to see community folks trust in the new model early. Not sure what that means from an incentives perspective, but it can't hurt to have your voice heard and have them see interest.
OK now back to our regularly scheduled cats & bourbon posting. 😛
r
cats drink bourbon while looking at your drink and judging you
😂 1
g
Toonces?
j
@Mark Takata (Adobe), to be honest, I kept my customers from purchasing those discounted 23 licenses as there was no clear messaging on subscription discounts and they are happy with the Standard pricing at the moment. At $63.33 a month, it is not bad deal.
I have not yet looked at the cloud options but I am wondering if this will bring down the monthly cost even more.
q
@Mark Takata (Adobe) -- I'm interested in how the EULA is going to change for 2025. The current license agreement still in place requires you to count physical cores in the server you are in. If you can't (like for a cloud provider) you can either rent the software, or get a custom agreement. They didn't take into account assigning virtual CPUs to the application or VM, they only counted physical cores available on the machine hosting it. Even though our reseller was saying "oh, that's not a problem, they don't enforce that part" our legal team said it still stood as written.
☝️ 2
m
JC, very possible. I know the AMIs are in-flight and just cleaning up some administration details at Amazon/MS/Google (as always). Not certain what, if any, pricing will change (our 3rd party vendors set their prices).
q
And BTW, in the virtual space (VMware, KVM, and cloud providers) they use the terminology of "CPUs" not "Cores" Cores have always referred to the physical machine serving the application, where vCPUs are clear in what is assigned or made available to the application.
m
Maybe @Ryan Brown could speak to the VPS side?
Hmm, good points quetwo. This is where my mostly dev side of experience leaves me at a disadvantage. Usually I "had people for that" or leaned on my provider/cloud to deal with it.
q
Understood. But you seem to be our only conduit and advocate to make it right at Big Red 😉
👍 1
m
I'm here for y'all. Fighting the good fight. As well and as much as I can do.
q
BTW, we literally got pushed to Lucee because we couldn't come to terms with Adobe on licensing. The standard EULA was not workable in our VMware cluster (because of the licensing of cores in our clusters), and the custom contracts they were proposing were entirely based on "revenue" of the University -- which made absolutely no sense. Let alone the ability to migrate VMs between the cloud, etc., which is something we do.
r
of course - if the licensing is changed to CPU, then the cost advantage to running on physical server goes way up vs a virtual machine. having a 2 cpu server with 8 cores each would make the cost of CF seem very reasonable, but if the language got changed to "core or vCPU" then at least you are closer to apples-to-apples
m
This is good info to know. I'm not a fan of the core thing, it seems very confusing. I'd love to find a solution that works for both sides and is easy and transparent.
p
Yea you are here for us Mark, just like to get solid fact answers of the full spectrum of ACF including things like licensing facts in legal writing as quetwo is referring to as well
And yes @quetwo that has been a point I have been making about their “licensing guys” trying to trap you into a rate that they should have zero understanding of. They dont need to know my revenues.
💯 1
q
@Mark Takata (Adobe) -- Industry best practice is to license based off of vCPU, Max memory, or a combination of the two. I think only MS-SQL still does it for CPU cores -- and they offer a totally different CAL for anything virtual or in the cloud.
m
QT do you know if that CAL is public, or would I have to get their sales engineers drunk?
p
yes MS SQL is whatever cores your physical has is what you must license.
q
Unless you are a $1M revenue and a named account, you would probably need to talk to a reseller to get the details on it. Microsoft resellers are a dime-a-dozen to find though, and they can get the details pretty quick.
I /believe/ the NPL price sheet and terms should be public out there though.
m
I'll dig around. Danka mucho compadre.
r
@Mark Takata (Adobe) that is exactly what the code is like for one of my clients - why do you insist on mixing languages 😄 ?
m
My brain is a ball of chaos fine sir. I program in like 14 of them and speak and think in several others. I'm a coked up otter in a dishwasher, basically 😉
🤣 1
r
not your fault - clearly I am just having a bit of PTSD due to that code base
❤️ 1
j
🦦 ❄️ ❄️ ❄️
m
I don't blame you Reuben, that description gave me the heebiejeebies. lol
x
Regarding cloud pricing for ColdFusion, our costs were already "subscription" like so no change for us.
❤️ 1
m
A wild Ryan enters the chat! Hi buddy ❤️
x
Hey!!!
@Mark Takata (Adobe) Can you get marketing to remove the roadmap link from the website.... it ends at 2018...
r
while we are piling on, https://helpx.adobe.com/coldfusion/introduction-user-guide.html, shows a 'Whats new and changed in ColdFusion (2023 release)" - not 2025
ditto in the item beneath, Adobe ColdFusion updates
image.png
m
One sec, lemme punt that particular thing into #C0BSK7P2T
Note the update date, last updated may 30, 2024. looks like the team has to get that page propped. might be sitting in approval limbo, I'll have @saghosh take a look-see. Thank you sir ❤️
d
• Do I understand rightly that Standard can't be used on a machine with more than 2 cores? • Are there any pricing differences for dev or test servers?
j
I'd assume it's similar to what it's always been - 1 production license = 1 dev license. At least that's the way I've always understood it. This was from CF2021 I think (emphasis mine): "For each license of Production Software obtained by the Licensee, Adobe grants Licensee a license to install and use the Software as Development Software on one Server." I was really hoping they would have re-vamped the entire licensing process around this price change. Including support is great but some clear, easy to understand guidelines around cores, dev servers, virtualization, etc would have been welcome.
h
@Dave Merrill Standard shouldn't be used on a machine with more than 2 cores. As the discussion above, it sounds like if server has > 2 cores, then additional Standard licenses need to be purchased.
d
That's going to go over great here if that stands up, not. We'll see, we're waiting on a quote from our most usual supplier of such stuff.
➕ 1
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by