Coldfusion issue

[ogroning]

All of my coldfusion sites have this meta tag inserted by the Coldfusion server.

<META NAME="ColdFusionMXEdition" CONTENT="ColdFusion DevNet Edition - Not for Production Use.">

Can something be done to correct this? I had a customer point it out to me. he was concerned about the legality of the server license.

I'm on HADRON by the way.

[Aaron Martone]

This appears on the Hadron Server or the localhost?

Make a .cfm page with just

<cfdump var="#SERVER#">

And tell me the value of:

COLDFUSION > PRODUCTLEVEL

[ogroning]

Enterprise

[Aaron Martone]

If I recall, there is a Coldfusion MX 6/6.1 DevNet Edition that is available with a Macromedia DevNet Subscription. It has the full functionality of the Enterprise edition, but is restricted for Development use only. There is also a Developer Edition (that I use) which again has the full functionality of the Enterprise edition, however is limited by only allowing one IP address to access it, and is again, for development use only.

The DevNet edition inserts that meta tag "watermark" that will allow people to use a simple search engine for that Meta tag to find who's trying to use a DevNet edition to run production files (which is a violation of the EULA) I THINK it also breaks proper XML structure, invalidating that page's code.

If this is the case, I believe there is no known workaround, since the server is not intended or licensed for production use.

Is this the edition you're using locally or is this what you're getting reported when uploading files to Hadron?

[ogroning]

It's displayed on all my sites from HADRON.

check:
www.ottogroning.com
www.reeftechnology.com
www.classicsterling.com

i have about 15 total that all show the same meta tag.

[Aaron Martone]

Hmm. Then it sounds a bit like Host Nexus' license on Hadron is a DevNet edition. May have gotten the licensing numbers mixed. You should open a support ticket to let them know about this.

http://www.nexusportal.net/support/ticket-system/?_a=tickets&_m=submit

[ogroning]

ticket submitted.

thanks for you help!

[Aaron Martone]

Let me know what you find out. I'm curious. Tryin to know all things CF!

[NexDog]

In order to upgrade quickly to CFMX 7 we use the DevNet edition because it's so much cheaper. This is also why we haven't upgraded the 6.1 servers yet. We do intend on getting the full Enterprise version for CFMX 7 servers - just not sure when exactly.

[ogroning]

Thanks Laurence. I just wanted to be sure and prepare myself in case clients question me.

[Aaron Martone]

Ah ha! *points at Nexdog* TWAS the Dog in the Server Room with the RJ45 Crimper!

Wait a tic, I'm not playin I.T. Clue.

Ah well, the mystery is solved!

[ogroning]

:)

[Aaron Martone]

Oh snap. I didnn't notice it til now, but it looks like Meson has the same issue. Not only is there a Meta Tag which invalidates my code (and since I'm developing a site touting me as a PROFESSIONAL web developer, I can't have that!), I also noticed it inserted a JS as an include.

Might be automatic just because I'm using CFFORM rather than FORM, and CFFORM's support masks, which enough, is the name of the JS include (CFIDE/scripts/masks.js).

[ogroning]

hopefully it will be resolved soon.

[Aaron Martone]

To be honest, as long as it's all legit, that's fine; that's really HN's beef. But the fact it INVALIDATES my code! *Yosemite Sam Voice* OOOH AYYYE! That's thems there last straw! ;)

[shotokan]

I am having the same problems on ION also running the DevNet version of CFMX7.
The meta tag is inserted on any XML pages, invalidating the XML code.

I tried to get around this by grabbing the XML page with CFHTTP so that I could then strip out the meta tag, however CFHTTP appears to refuse to work at all with any XML code.

So basically I have had to move a couple of sites off ION again, because I couldn't get the code to work. In fact I am moving them to a different hosting service altogether!

Hostnexus should be strongly encouraged to update these licenses ASAP!

[Ravenlord]

I am under the impression that when the DevNet version is being used in a production way it will only allow so many requests before it crapps out. Might be the reason CF keeps crapping out on MESON.

[shotokan]

yeah, I'm not real happy with the idea of having my clients sites on a DevNet licence, I will be moving one site from Ion to somewhere else soon - unless they update the licence... I realise it's expensive and all that, but no way can I keep reselling space on that server.
So far it's been quite stable - the only reason the site has not been moved yet.

[Aaron Martone]

I don't believe the DevNet license has those limitations built into it. It operates as a Coldfusion MX 7 installation, however due to it's EULA which states it cannot be used for production, it inserts the watermark, which I'm sure Search Engine Spiders will index and Macromedia could do a quick search on that phrase to find sites that area breaking policy.

I havn't put my site up to Meson yet, but I've tested a page here and there and havn't had any performance issues to note. When I tie into a SQL DB, I'm guessing that's when stuff might start to go south; but I'll wait til I see how it goes before I form an opinion. I'm eager to see what HN does to resolve that SQL snafu.

[edgarfebres]

I'm in the middle of moving 12+ sites to hostnexus. Trying to get rid of my server in co-location, just to find out that my XML for my RSS will not work when I move it to the PHOTON servers because it is using a DevNet version of CFMX7.
I don't believe we need the enterprise version of CF since it is only needed when you want to break CF for multiple admins (which would be great to be able to control our own space), also for clustering and other features we are not using or at least not allowed to use. So to pay $1,300 for a production license of coldfusion doesn't seem that bad agains a $6,000 Enterprise version of CF.

I just don't think we need that much if we are not going to benefit directly from it.

[Aaron Martone]

You think THAT's bad, there's a CF license type for Government Agencies that is said to be $15k.

But I agree here. Shell out the $1300/server and be done with it! Come on HN! You guys are pimp-level rich, right? Dish out the bling bling at lets get legit.

[Collectonian]

I wonder what kind of license that is. I work for a state agency and we got a regular CF license (except we only paid around $600-700 for single full license) ;)

[shotokan]

Edgar, I agree with you that this XML not working with the DevNet version is a big problem - especially after going to all the trouble to move a website (or 12) - only to find you have to do it all over again. I really think , HostNexus, that customers expect that you already have proper licensing in place. You should at least be advising anyone moving sites onto these DevNet servers what the situation is - otherwise people are wasting their time. My suggestion, either have a proper license for CF7, or don't offer it until you do.

[Aaron Martone]

Collectonian-

It was a license that came with Silver Support (retails $10,000) and an Enterprise version (not Standard) of CFMX 7 (retails $6000). They had it for $1000 off at the time. More of a combo pack than a license. But I'm sure Macromedia has a license for each and every combo deal they do.

[Collectonian]

Ah...that would explain it then. We just get the Standard license, no extra support ;-)

[Aaron Martone]

Same here. We have 2 CFMX 6.1 servers which we just bought the CFMX 7 update to (on a Standard License) for $650 each.

[Aaron Martone]

Hey HN, do you have an ETA when this will be addressed? I'm shootin for a tentative 11.01.05 release, and need to know whether I can keep my XHTML valid logo up or not. :)

[tetranz]

Originally posted by Aaron Martone
need to know whether I can keep my XHTML valid logo up or not. :) Potentially more important is the quesion of whether or not your site will be legal for production purposes? Are you a DevNet Professional subscriber? If not then you're not even supposed to be developing with it let alone use the server for a production site. I suspect Macromedia / Adobe would not be impressed with this situation.

DevNet License (http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/subscriptions/licensing.html#servers)

[ogroning]

I new situation occured today when i started working on the CFWDDX feed from a clients server to be converted back to cfml on my Hostnexus server. The Not for Production Use meta stamp invalidates the WDDX packet!!!!! The application will not work. After 2 hours of head banging troubleshooting, this was the culprit.

I need a solution for this as the client needs to implement this app by next week.

[ogroning]

I did get this working after all but i still feel that it should be addressed.

[Aaron Martone]

Originally posted by tetranz
Potentially more important is the quesion of whether or not your site will be legal for production purposes? Are you a DevNet Professional subscriber? If not then you're not even supposed to be developing with it let alone use the server for a production site. I suspect Macromedia / Adobe would not be impressed with this situation.

DevNet License (http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/subscriptions/licensing.html#servers)

I'm not sure why you quoted me, and then referred to whether I was a DevNet subscriber or not. I can develop my websites with whatever tools I want, since I own the retail version of Macromedia Studio MX 2004 Professional, Adobe Photoshop CS, Adobe Illustrator CS, and am developing my Coldfusion applications with the Developer Edition of Coldfusion MX 7; who's license grants me rights to run locally and allow up to 2 remote connections (which I do not use).

To my knowledge, I'm 100% within my rights to do what I'm doing.

[tetranz]

Originally posted by Aaron Martone
I'm not sure why you quoted me, and then referred to whether I was a DevNet subscriber or not. I wasn't meaning to point fingers at you specifically Aaron but I still stand by the letter of what I said. There are bigger issues here than XHTML compliance.

What you describe is fine, of course, in terms of you working on your own computer with your licensed software but a sticky situation arises if you then deploy it on HN's DevNet server with the intention of making it a public website.

If you read that license then its very obvious that its a blatant violation of Macromedia's license to use the DevNet version for anything other than development within a closed organization and all developers must be DevNet members.

Sorry to sound harsh but it was a bad move on HN's part to say they do CF hosting and then provide it with a DevNet version. Easy for me to say, I know, I'm not trying to run a profitable hosting company but if they can't afford the proper server software then they shouldn't offer CF hosting until they can.

In fairness, the HN package I have (Windows reseller) doesn't actually say CF so I can't really complain. Perhaps the specific CF hosting they offer has properly licensed software.

If I was in your position Aaron, I'd be thinking, what if someone (MM or otherwise) notices that tag on one of my clients' sites and hassles the client about it? What will that do for my reputation with the client?

Ross

[Aaron Martone]

There is no issue of my concern bigger than what I stated. XHTML and CSS compliancy are my responsibility. The license my host chooses to use are THEIR responsibility.

There's no point in crying over spilled milk. As difficult as it would be, and as bad a rep as HN would get over it, we DO have the option to pull our websites and go with another host. So far I have chosen not to, hoping that the good folks at HN will get their license updated and legitimate.

But there's nothing I myself can do otherwise, so I won't fret on it.

[Collectonian]

I have sites on Hadron and Meson, both of which are CF hosting servers and ordered as CF sites. Both are using the DevNet version. HN has acknowledge that they are using the DevNet version for all the ColdFusion hosting. Just no word on when they will be fixing things so they have a legitimate license.

[NexDog]

Just wanted to drop you all a line to say that we finally fixed the licencing issues on the new CF 7 servers and the way has been paved to upgrade the other 6.1 servers when time permits. Thank you all for your patience but due to the sheer cost it did take a while to figure this all out.

[Collectonian]

Woo hoo...thanks NexDog :bounce:

[Aaron Martone]

Looks like it is so. I know CF was a costly decision, but I'm glad HN went with it. All the sites I develop for clients will be with CF and I will get them hosting with HN for this.

[ogroning]

EXCELLENT!

Thank you for addressing this.

[Ravenlord]

OHH YEAH!!! NexDog is the MAN!!!!

I just checked my sites and no more devnet crapola and now it passes as valid XHTML!!! woohoo

Many many thanks!!

\m/

[edgarfebres]

finally, something worth commending!