SOT Confused by ColdFusion MX Pricing and Features

A potential client asked me the difference between CFMX Server Enterprise and the combination of CFMXJ2ee for JRun and JRun. The way I understand it, CFMX Server Enterprise comes with a JRun tailored for CFMX and you don't get (or get access to) all the underlying JRun functions). So, if you want CFMX and all the capabilities of a J2ee Application Server, you buy the separate products to gain more function, features and flexibility. Doing a price comparison: CFMX Server Enterprise--- $5,000                 CFMXJ2ee/JRun4---- $4,300 ($3,400 + $900) Now I am really confused -- you pay more to get less. Assumably, the integrated CFMX Server Enterprise is easier to install and maintain than  separate CFMXJ2ee and JRun products -- but is that difference worth $700 more (while getting less function/flexibility). Am I missing something? TIA DIck P.S.  Reminds me of an old saying we had at IBM -- the Palo Alto Postulate,  that stated: "The customer will pay more to buy less (of worse) -- because worse is not as good, the customer wants less of it -- and the customer expects to pay more to get what he wants"

On Saturday, Nov 9, 2002, at 15:21 US/Pacific, Dick Applebaum wrote: > CFMX Server Enterprise--- $5,000                 CFMXJ2ee/JRun4---- > $4,300 ($3,400 + $900) > > Now I am really confused -- you pay more to get less. Note that CFMX for J2EE is per *CPU* whereas as CFMX Server Enterprise is per *server* - if you're on a 2 CPU machine (or more), that makes a difference. "I can smell your brains!" -- Mittens the Kitten : http://www.matazone.co.uk/theotherside.html

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 03:31 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I missed that, Why the distinction? Doesn't CFMX Server Enterprise support multiple-CPU servers? Isn't the multi-CPU support handled by the underlying OS? If so, how can any software package prevent a Single-CPU package   running on a Multiple-CPU box? Thanks Sean, for participating in the on-going "Education of Dick   Applebaum" Dick > "I can smell your brains!" > -- Mittens the Kitten : http://www.matazone.co.uk/theotherside.html

On Saturday, Nov 9, 2002, at 16:12 US/Pacific, Dick Applebaum wrote: > Why the distinction? At heart I expect it's because enterprise class software - in the UNIX world - is typically licensed per CPU and so that's what people expect (an 8-CPU Oracle production license would make you cry!). > Doesn't CFMX Server Enterprise support multiple-CPU servers? Yes, but Windows software is typically licensed per server and I expect there's not much justification in having a different licensing structure for the same standalone software on Solaris. Note that JRun 4 is licensed per CPU, even on Windows. This is more traditional with application servers, as far as I can tell. > Isn't the multi-CPU support handled by the underlying OS? Yes. > If so, how can any software package prevent a Single-CPU package > running on a Multiple-CPU box? Well, some software will check to see how many CPUs you have - that's pretty straightforward on most platforms - but what really stops you doing this is the licensing enforcement folks. Anyone who's met Macromedia's anti-piracy team wouldn't even *dream* of violating their license agreement, believe me! :) :) "I have always wished that my computer would be   as easy to use as my telephone.   My wish has come true - I no longer know how to   use my telephone."  -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Please elaborate further....Which server is useful for what specific purpose.... Thanks --Siva --- Dick Applebaum <dicklacara@mac.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 03:38 PM, siva girumala wrote: > Please elaborate further....Which server is useful for > what specific purpose.... > Thanks > That's what I am trying to determine -- there are feature comparison matrixes on the Macromedia site, and it appears that CFMXJ2ee and JRun are a superior offering for less money. Dick

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- This is purely a licensing issue. CFMX Enterprise Edition supports multiple CPUs, but you don't have to pay a per-CPU license fee. CFMX for J2EE also supports multiple CPUs, but to have a legal license, you have to pay a per-CPU license fee. There are other applications that have similar licensing. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 04:25 PM, Dave Watts wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- So, there are no implied benefits to the purchaser, that because he is   charged per CPU, CFMXJ2ee will perform better on on (or take better   advantage of ) multiple CPUs than CFMX Enterprise Server. Many will likely ask:  "Why shouldn't I just buy a CFMXJ2ee license for   a single CPU, regardless of how many CPU's the box has?". It appears that this sort of pricing is artificial, and nudges   customers to be dishonest -- since I can't see how it can be enforced. Why not just charge based on product capabilities? Do Server OS platforms charge based on the number of CPU'? -- At least   they would have a valid reason and an enforcement mechanism. Sorry to be so stupid, but I am not familiar with the server side of   the business. TIA Dick > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Some do... Sort of.  Number of CPUs generally hasn't meant different Windows Server packages, but there are "optimized" versions (Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Datacenter server is supposedly optimized forhigh numbers of CPUs). > Sorry to be so stupid, but I am not familiar with the server side of   > the business. In this case MM is probably just following the lead of those its working with.  I think that all of the app servers that MX for J2EE works with are licensed this way. Personally I agree that it makes little sense, however it is industry practice.  One argument I've heard is that multiple CPUs allow multiple "copies" of the app to run concurantly - rubbish in my opinion. Another argument is that this pricing allows even the "little guy" to enter the market.  So that I might spend $4000 for my single CPU machine, but a large company might spend $16,000 for the SAME EXACT package to run on their quad processor machine. The main point is that vendors believe that somebody that can afford more iron can afford more in general.  That made more sense when multi-CPU machines were exotic and rarely seen outside corporate data centers.  Now that you can buy then off the shelf it's just a ridiculous tradition that won't away since it puts money in corporate pockets. Jim Davis

On Saturday, Nov 9, 2002, at 16:42 US/Pacific, Dick Applebaum wrote: > So, there are no implied benefits to the purchaser, that because he is > charged per CPU, CFMXJ2ee will perform better on on (or take better > advantage of ) multiple CPUs than CFMX Enterprise Server. Full J2EE application servers generally provide sophisticated clustering and fail over options, as well as a number of other features. As may be evident already from some of the threads we've seen here, setting up a full-blown J2EE application server so it is properly tuned and configured is a much bigger deal than setting up CF standalone - CF was designed to be (relatively) easy to set up. > Many will likely ask:  "Why shouldn't I just buy a CFMXJ2ee license for > a single CPU, regardless of how many CPU's the box has?". Actually, many won't. As I said in my other email, enterprise software customers are used to paying per-CPU - see below for information from Microsoft about per-CPU licensing. > It appears that this sort of pricing is artificial, and nudges > customers to be dishonest -- since I can't see how it can be enforced. Well, it *can* be enforced because most systems let you interrogate how many CPUs they have. > Why not just charge based on product capabilities? More CPUs means more capacity so in a sense you *are* paying based on capability. > Do Server OS platforms charge based on the number of CPU'? -- At least > they would have a valid reason and an enforcement mechanism. Some do, yes. Here's a quote from Microsoft's Server Product licensing document: "The current license policy for Microsoft® server products offers customers a choice between three modes:  (i) Per Seat mode (ii) Per Server mode and (iii) Per Processor mode.  Customers may select the mode that best suits their organization’s needs.  It is possible to have different types of servers licensed in different modes.  It is not necessary to notify Microsoft of the licensing mode selected. Regardless of which mode the customer chooses, a server license is required for the right to run any given copy of the server software on a particular system.  Some options may require the acquisition of a Client Access License (CAL) for each client’s right to access a particular server product.  Microsoft’s current policy, however, leaves it up to the customer to choose the Server licensing mode that best fits their needs where choices are available. With Per Seat licensing, a CAL is associated with a specific computer, device or “seat”.  Using this alternative, client computers are allowed access to any server on the network running the particular server application for which that client machine is licensed. With Per Server licensing, a CAL is associated with a particular server. This alternative allows concurrent-use licensing; i.e., if a customer decides to use the server in Per Server mode, he/she must then have at least as many CALs dedicated to that server as the maximum number of clients that will connect to that server at any one point in time. With Per Processor licensing, no CALs are needed; the right to access the server is covered by the server license itself.  So any one, any time, any where, from any device that has the proper permission from the server owner may access the information on that Per Processor licensed server." More information can be found here:   http://www.microsoft.com/servers/howtobuy/default.asp > Sorry to be so stupid, but I am not familiar with the server side of > the business. No problem. Licensing is a vast black box and there are many options. "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

On 11/9/02, Dick Applebaum penned: >Many will likely ask:  "Why shouldn't I just buy a CFMXJ2ee license for >a single CPU, regardless of how many CPU's the box has?". Sure. Just like many ask; "Why should I pay for software at all?" (then don't) :) >It appears that this sort of pricing is artificial, and nudges >customers to be dishonest -- since I can't see how it can be enforced. Just like with SQL Server 2000, which is also licensed on a per CPU basis. I bought a single CPU server just for SQL Server because I couldn't afford the extra 4k to for an additional processor license. Of course, I could have bought a dual CPU box and a single processor license, or I could have just not paid for it at all. The problem is with either scenario, if M$ (or Macromedia in the case of CF) would decide to audit me (or a disgruntled employee turns me in), then I'm out of business, bankrupt, kaput. >Why not just charge based on product capabilities? Then they'd have to charge 15 times as much to Mom and Pop with a single CPU to make up for the money they'd be losing by not charging Corporate Joe for licensing his dozen or so 8 CPU servers. :) I at least like the way Oracle does it (even though their pricing is ridiculous), which is by CPU power. It costs the same to license 4 500 Mz CPUs as it does a single 2 Gz CPU. >Do Server OS platforms charge based on the number of CPU'? -- At least >they would have a valid reason and an enforcement mechanism. They charge by the number of workstations connected to the server. Nothing stopping you there either from hooking up a couple dozen workstations with the 5 client access licenses that come with it. Except fear and honesty. :) -- Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development buddy@twcreations.com http://www.twcreations.com/ 954.721.3452

With SQL Server 2000, you can set in the application which CPUs to use. If I have a 8 way box, but only want two processors to be for SQL Server, I can set it that way. I have seen a few places do this, they will buy a dual processor box, but then set the SQL Server to only use one processor, Leaving the other one available, for other things. They claim it allows them to be doing work on the box without impacting SQL Server. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> So, there are no implied benefits to the purchaser, that > because he is charged per CPU, CFMXJ2ee will perform better > on on (or take better advantage of ) multiple CPUs than > CFMX Enterprise Server. Right. It's purely a licensing compliance issue. > Many will likely ask:  "Why shouldn't I just buy a CFMXJ2ee > license for a single CPU, regardless of how many CPU's the > box has?". > > It appears that this sort of pricing is artificial, and nudges   > customers to be dishonest -- since I can't see how it can be > enforced. Actually, in most enterprise environments I've seen, this doesn't really come up. Most server products in those environments tend to be fully licensed. It's not that those environments have a higher moral standard, but that they have relatively strict policies about these things, and people aren't spending their own money anyway, if you know what I mean. If you're a middle manager, would you risk your job to save your bosses some money? Also, no one would want to invalidate their tech support - having tech support is perceived as a really important thing in the enterprise. > Why not just charge based on product capabilities? Because product capabilities don't have anything to do with it, really. Vendors charge what the market will bear. > Do Server OS platforms charge based on the number of CPU'? -- > At least they would have a valid reason and an enforcement > mechanism. I suspect that most server operating systems don't do this simply because it's irrelevant at that level - you get the server OS with the server. If you look at Windows as an example, Microsoft doesn't really care about how many processors you have - they care about how many clients will access the server. That makes more sense for them, as they're likely to get more for a four-processor box as a single processor box, just because it'll be able to support more clients. On the other hand, it's common for database servers to work this way. Oracle has traditionally been the worst in this regard. Basically, for a long time, buying Oracle was a lot like buying a car - they'd milk you for whatever they thought they could get away with. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 07:52 PM, Dave Watts wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I thought rthat support would be the reason -- but wanted someone else   to state the fact. Over the life of the installation, I suspect that the initial cost of   CFMX is relatively minor when compared to other costs. > >> Why not just charge based on product capabilities? > > Because product capabilities don't have anything to do with it, really. > Vendors charge what the market will bear. > Ahh, a realist! ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I am not familiar with any server software offerings. By clients do you mean concurrent browsers accessing the server, or   something else. Apple, on its Server software has 2 prices:  10 clients; and unlimited   clients. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Mmmm... I guess this has changed. Thanks Dick > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444