Dec 2
In today's show we talk about the new Flash Player 10.2 with stage video. We then talk about the ColdFusion Builder white paper and our thoughts on that. We then take a walk down what "Open Source" in the ColdFusion community means.
Show Topic Links:
The History of ColdFusion Builder
http://www.adrocknaphobia.com/post.cfm/the-history-of-coldfusion-builder
ColdFusion Builder and CFEclipse
http://www.adrocknaphobia.com/post.cfm/coldfusion-builder-and-cfeclipse
CFHour Store
http://cfhour.spreadshirt.com/
Dec 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM Very interesting episode, to say the least. As someone who has developed on both Adobe CF and Railo, it does sadden me to see the perpetuation of the "us against them" mentality between the open source engines and Adobe CF (as also witnessed on Twitter a couple of days ago), because I think, as CFML developers, we shouldn't let our choice of engine be a divisive issue. I'm not really sure where this idea that those who use and/or promote the open source engines are necessarily "anti-Adobe". Can you point to any examples of this being a prominent position? I, for one, am neither anti-Adobe nor an Adobe fanboy.
Where the OpenCF Summit is concerned, instead of throwing out conjecture, I think it would be much more interesting and balanced to have someone like Matt Woodward or Sean Corfield on the show to have a frank discussion/debate on what the conference is all about. Although with Dave's ACF status, I'd understand that he might want to maintain a pro-Adobe slant on the podcast.
Dec 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM whoops -- typo in that last sentence: "ACP", not "ACF"
Dec 7, 2010 at 6:31 PM Wow. I love getting blindsided.
I'm sorry, but *who's* supposedly creating the divisiveness in this so-called "community" again?
I would have been happy to talk to you about OpenCF Summit if you were actually interested in getting the real story on it, or on open source CFML in general and its goals, why those of us involved with it do what we do, etc., but clearly an informed discussion wasn't your goal here.
There are a million other things I could say but it's quite evident I'd be wasting my breath. I just want others who happen upon this nonsense to understand that everything you said about the goals of open source CFML and OpenCF Summit was 1000% off base. If people want the real story on any of this they know where to find me.
Stay classy guys!
Dec 7, 2010 at 9:36 PM This was kind of a bummer of an episode.
It was fine until you started to expound on stuff that you have little knowledge of (open source), and then going on to do the opposite of what you started off advocating (peaceful CFML).
I wish people wouldn't stir the pot so... but I guess that is life, neh?
Ah well. Whatever floats yer boat. To each their own, &c. =)
Dec 7, 2010 at 10:40 PM As it stands, the relationship between Adobe and the various Open Source CFML engines is irretrievably broken. In this tiny corner of the internet, Adobe alternatively plays the chest-thumping ("grenades first") overlord, and the jilted lover, sobbing when they're not invited to the party.
Enough is enough. Nobody gives a shit.
CFML is not Cold Fusion, Railo/OpenBD are working on different engines addressed to meet different clientele, and Adobe needs to recognize that any impact they make on Adobe's revenue caused by these tools is miniscule compared to the brutal drubbing they've taken over the years by other competitors such as PHP (heck, you even admit it's a secondary language for you in this podcast).
Adobe may choose to waste their time (and their shareholder value) by orchestrating these campaigns against Railo/OpenBD, but they'd do well to focus on the much larger and very real threats outside the CFML/ColdFusion "community."
If and when Adobe drops ColdFusion (or goes under), it won't be because of these penny-ante free engines, it'll be the 800-pound gorillas...
Dec 7, 2010 at 10:57 PM Boy, had no idea Adobe had a podcast on its payroll - what's with all the hate?! I've been using OpenBD for two years and can't relate to any of what you're talking about...
Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 PM What an inconvenient fact that Adam is paid to evangelize his product, while the Railo and OpenBD guys do what they do purely out of enthusiasm for CFML, specifically in contrast with the REAL competition: Rails, PHP, etc...
Besides, wasn't it Adobe that abandoned the http://opencfml.org/ effort?
Michael, thanks for wrapping up the show so quickly - it was definitely getting out of hand. You should really consider going your own way with this...
Dec 8, 2010 at 1:01 AM The danger here in this thread is of another "Adobe vs OpenBD/Railo" pissing match, but that's not the real issue here and it does no good in my opinion to feed into that. I just feel (as some others here have stated) that a lot of what was said in this podcast (by Dave/Mike, NOT Adobe) misrepresents what the OS engines are about and, as I said before, it might've been better for if they'd have spoken to people more "in the know" (specially since they themselves admit that they don't know much about the OS engines or, presumably, their users/stewards.
Dec 8, 2010 at 1:50 AM I hope it is an oversight that you left off a link to OpenCF Summit considering you spent 27+ minutes discussing it. Here it is for those interested:
http://www.opencfsummit.org
Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 AM @Tony: totally agree Dave/Mike can salvage this discussion by inviting folks from Railo, OpenBD and OpenCFSummit on to present the non-Adobe pov.
@Outsider: thanks for pointing out the link - if nothing else, my interest in OpenCFSummit just shot up 1000%. Doesn't hurt it's a full 3-day conference for less than $200! I had to take out a second mortgage to attend the last MAX...
Dec 8, 2010 at 3:29 AM Thank you all for your replies. Anyone that wants to come on the show and discuss any ColdFusion related topic is welcome. All are welcome to share their own opinions on the show as I have shared mine.
Feel free to contact me and we can work out a schedule.
As for what what I said on the show. I stand by what I said. I have no want or need to rehash my statements and defend them. You can either agree or not that is
your right.
Thanks,
--Dave
Dec 8, 2010 at 6:20 PM Right but the point is, you should really give people the chance to defend themselves or at least give them a heads up BEFORE you trash them. Welcoming them on after the fact is at best disingenuous and at worst flatly manipulative.
But again, you can salvage things right now by reaching out to them and scheduling them for the next show. But this stubborn "I stand by what I said" stuff is just tacky.
Dec 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM A couple of points that were raised in the podcast prompted us to write up a detailed "what it is and what it isn't" blog post, as well as address the charge that we were deliberately excluding Adobe:
http://blog.opencfsummit.org/opencf-summit-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt
Dec 8, 2010 at 6:57 PM Time to bring back "ColdFusion Weekly". I stopped listening to this podcast a while go since the hosts seem unprepared and not well informed on subjects.
Dec 8, 2010 at 7:02 PM @Mike I am sorry that you stopped listening for the reasons you stated. However, doing a weekly show as well as our normal jobs is not easy. We do our best to gather information durring the week to have content for the show. There are times that we don't have everything at our finger tips when we need them. This is usually because of the direction the conversation went.
But, by all means, feel free to do a podcast of your own. I feel that it is then, and only then, that will you discover how time consuming and complicated it actually is.
Thanks,
--Dave
Dec 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM I am actually listening to this week's podcast *sigh*.
For a reference to others, here are Jim's post mentioned as "grand standing" and "Soaking 15 mins of fame."
http://thecrumb.com/2010/11/24/adobe-wants-your-lunch-money-now/
http://thecrumb.com/2010/11/25/cfhug/
Honestly, I have been following Jim for years regarding ColdFusion, ANT, Eclipse, and find your comment disrespectful. Jim has been active in the CF Community for quite a while with presentations and blog posts.
Dec 8, 2010 at 9:24 PM Just a comment. Dave said in his rant about the three cfml engines, "Those three engines will not run the same code."
Yet, BlogCFC runs on all three engines? o_O
Dec 8, 2010 at 9:58 PM Most stuff runs in all three engines if you're running the latest versions of OpenBD and Railo (which are both *tiny* in size compared to ACF, and have smaller memory footprints).
Open source has nothing to do with commit access.
Open source != anti-Adobe =)
Dec 8, 2010 at 10:14 PM @Dave, I understand that podcasting can take on the "organic" nature of a normal conversation and some of the best CFWeekly podcasts were of this nature. However there was a reason we had a "roadmap" with notes for every podcast including the "organic" ones.
Research was the most time consuming item for the CFWeekly with production / editing coming a close second. I have a complete understanding of the time involved here since I did this for 2.5 years of my life!
Saying you don't have the time to "research" everything and that is just an lousy excuse for not taking the time be informed. If you don't know enough details on what you are talking about, my advice is you might consider not discussing it in future podcasts or editing it out.
Dec 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM re:BlogCFC - other folks (including Dave :) have access to the BlogCFC repo. It isn't just me.
Dec 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM Also, using full open commit access a a criteria to determine if a project is open source basically means that few true OS projects would qualitfy. As for 2009, the popular Django framework for Python only had 15 full committers:
http://jacobian.org/writing/commit-bits/
There are practical reasons why open source projects have a hierarchy to who gets committer access. There is no test to administer to potential committers to see if their code measures up to the quality / standards / style / architecture of the project in question. This is why patches are great. It allows casual contributors to get their code put in while allowing a committer to review the code for the acceptable "quality" standards. In regards to Mach-II, I've accepted patches without any modifications, I've accepted patches with minor to major changes and I've outright rejected patches because the "feature" is completely off base (this is why talking to committers before embarking on a big patch is useful). At Mach-II, we've given commit access to several people based off patches (among other things like documentation / mailing list responses).
The phrase "too many cooks spoil the pot" comes to mind here. Limiting committers is a means of quality control and to make sure that the recipe (OS project) is not spoiled. All projects have a vision or a plan for future features / architecture and this is one way to ensure we don't burn the cookies... Remember not everybody knows and shares the same recipe / plan / vision.
There is the flip side of the problem which I see heavily in the CFML world is the failure to ever grow beyond a single committer. In the beginning, a single committer is fine but after a while you have to start trusting other people that want to help the project. Without adding additional committers, all the work load falls on a single person and people that summit a large amount of patches decide to move on if you don't recognize the merits of their contributions. In my book, getting over this hump is basic requirement to building a community around your project and this highlights the difference between just being an user of an OS project and a community member.
In the end, commit access is a privilege not a right. You have to earn it and that's why a lot of successful multi-committer projects are a meritocracy.
Dec 8, 2010 at 11:35 PM @Peter - I believe that I was the one who brought up commit access as something I thought was intrinsic to OSS. Let me elaborate since I think I may have misstated my understanding or wasn't being eloquent enough.
Willy nilly committing to a project doesn't make it open source. It makes it chaos. There of course has to be project leads and process to submit commits. In my experience when working in OSS, patches are freely accepted, but then it is up to the main project leads to do testing and approve patches back into the main line branch. I fully agree with your post on this, and wish I had been clearer on the show to demonstrate I do understand this. The thing I see missing from OSS in CF projects is the number of people you need behind it to make it successful beyond the language it is written in (ie WordPress and the like). The problem, as I see it to why this happens? CFML makes it very easy to "roll your own solution".
To others with complaints on we don't know what we're talking about. It saddens me to hear these comments. I view this show as a discussion once a week that you all get to be a part of. We have these talks regardless of wether we put out a show. I enjoy podcasting, and do another show as well. I have never expressed myself as a fountain of knowledge, merely another programmer trying to stay current and learn as we go. Doing this show has been a great experience for me professionally, and personally. With out it I would not have met many of the other developers I have had the privilege of meeting over the last two years. I have grown as a developer through our discussions and interviews.
Should we be called out when we make mistakes or don't have all the facts? Sure. But we're not journalists. We're developers, geeks, and nerds. Is that an excuse? Of course not. We have a responsibility to be able to back up factual statements with facts. It's a gray area when it comes to opinion, but my goal with this show has always been to create discussion points. I'm hoping they are more positive in coming episodes.
@Mike - I have not listened to the episode so I don't remember exactly what I said re:Jim. This goes back to don't tear each other down, build each other up. I will strive to live up to this on this show. Now if I don't agree with an opinion of another developer/blogger/person, I will not agree to avoid conflict, but I will try to portray myself in a respectful manner to that individual.
In discussing this today at work, I came to the conclusion that the loss of the CFML Advisory Board was a much bigger loss than I originally thought it was. If I had a perfect world, their goal of a base language with vendor specific additions was, in my eyes, an amazing ideal. It is a true shame it didn't work out. Not sure how that relates to this all, but just wanted to say it.
Well, we have a recording scheduled for tonight. For the 3 of you who stick around for it, here's to community building!
Dec 8, 2010 at 11:38 PM Yeah, I thought that Mike's definition of open source was a bit inaccurate. In essence, what makes a project open source is if it has a license that allows people to look at, modify, and re-distribute the code according to the conditions of the license. It really has nothing to do with access to commit rights to a specific repository.
Dec 8, 2010 at 11:52 PM @Tony - I'm not an expert on open source. I was only speaking from projects I had been involved with in the past. In doing some research to determine how off I was I read on Wikipedia (yes, I know it's just Wikipedia) "A main principle and practice of open source software development is peer production by bartering and collaboration, with the end-product, source-material, "blueprints" and documentation available at no cost to the public." To me this is what I was referring to. But I agree with your definition - "look at, modify, and re-distribute the code according to the conditions of the license". GPL MIT Apache and even Creative Commons licenses all go about the conditions differently but achieve the same goal.
Dec 9, 2010 at 1:53 AM Dave and Mike told me a while back they planned to invite me onto the podcast and interview me since I've mentioned to them privately (and now feel inclined to do so publicly) that I think they're a bit misinformed on a number of issues they've covered and it does irk me that they hold forth on the podcast without giving the people / projects they're talking about the chance to discuss or even respond.
I've actually only managed to get all the way thru a couple of cfHour episodes because... well, I find it so frustrating! Frankly guys, you're way off base on so many issues and the various people criticizing you here for being unprepared and not doing your research are spot on. Right now you're kind of the Fox News of the CF podcast world, I'm afraid...
I understand that, like Fox News, it's all about opinions but there are a lot of times when it doesn't sound like a very well informed opinion and there's enough misinformation and ignorance out there without podcasts adding to it :(
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:11 AM Maybe shrink the podcast down to 30m mins and use the other time to read up on the topics the podcast will be covering. Try printing out entries/articles and don't surf to critical items on your outline.
I enjoy The Ruby Show podcast and don't code Ruby. Maybe try to use their format. I really enjoyed Peter and Matt's podcast which was a different format than the Ruby Show.
The first part of this podcast, I was impressed with your guys knowledge on Flash but then the podcast regressed when Mike B said he hadn't even read the whitepapers. If the podcast team doesn't take the time to read the articles/posts, why should I take my time to listen.
Hopefully, some of this helps for a better listener experience.
Dec 9, 2010 at 6:33 AM Wow... "But when you b!tch that you can't do something, you may want to look at the real engine".
I mean really, where does one even begin to respond to something like that. I feel like you have some education ahead of you fine sir. I am ok with that, but I am also concerned with the community potentialy taking direction from such a uninformed opinion on something they obviously understand very little about.
Stick to what you understand in public forum. Feel free to ask questions on what you don't.
Dec 9, 2010 at 7:25 AM Well, everyone has one those days. I for one can understand. Running a podcast isn't easy and Dave went on a bit of a tangent there. No biggie. I'm sure the next show will help clear some of these items up. I'm sure there our parts of the RIApodcast where we have similar problems. As long as the segment is stated as being an opinion and not fact, I think it's fine. Before everyone jumps on Dave, keep in mind it was pretty clear he was stating his opinion. Also, I would like to point out, that they are very open about letting people call in or come on to state their positions. I would simply encourage you to do so if you have a disagreement.
Dave and Michael don't have all the history here, but my god, who does? There's so much that has happen over the years it could make a nice novel some day. I suspect they get a lot of their information from the Adobe side of things either through their relationship with Adam or the ACP program. I've mention before that the ACP program is probably not the greatest idea anymore.
But let's be real here, there are very real divisions in the community and that's not good. The disagreements use to be more technical or philosophical in nature. Lately, they seem to be getting more personal. The blow up over the OpenCFML Advisory Committee is one example, or Hal blogging about liking RoR is another. Adobe is not a perfect company and many of us have issues with how they do things, but let's keep things even keel.
Railo and OpenBD are in some ways competitors to Adobe. Is that really a big deal? Most tech companies have open source competitors. They seem to roll along without many problems. In fact, think about every major enterprise level software being used today, there are at least a few open source solutions in the same space. Right?
So ColdFusion is in the same boat. They think they have the better toolset and they're going to say so. That's perfectly fair. Adobe is a for-profit company and they charge money for the product line. That, again, is completely fair. The OSS and the FOSS in the CF world works along and at times against this structure. That, again, works fine for me. Let the market forces determine who is in charge of the future of this technology.
As a community, I think we need to grow up a bit here and realize that some of us with be on the Adobe side of things and some of us won't. At the end of the day, we make great applications, have very interesting discussions and have really fun conferences. We're all ColdFusion geeks and there is something simply beautiful about that :)
Dec 9, 2010 at 7:35 AM @John - You sir, I owe you a beer, or beverage of your choice. Thank you for the understanding. It's very appreciated.
Dec 9, 2010 at 7:50 AM No problem, hope this stuff doesn't discourage you guys from podcasting.
Dec 9, 2010 at 8:12 AM @John I was very discouraged this evening, to be honest. We cover most of this in episode 80 (freshly recorded). The one that stung most was Sean's comments. I, personally, am hoping to use this experience to do a better job in the future.
Dec 9, 2010 at 8:23 AM @MSB, hopefully you guys will take the hint and actually invite on the people you're criticizing so they can respond in real time?
Dec 9, 2010 at 9:03 AM @John - I think you miss the point (or at least mine). You cant tell what Dave was getting at when reading it, but by listening to him say the words you can actually hear the sarcasm.
This would appear to be an opinion formed from a protectionist stance. I have noticed the trending "me-too" position from a few others; Did I miss a memo somewhere? ;)
On the engines; It's Apples and Oranges, and sure they are both fruit, but the only ones who will argue the fact they are(or should be) the same color/flavor are the ones who have not tried both.
OpenBD/Railo are not a free version of ACF... and I am not really sure where the idea originated that they wanted to be? (Maybe thats a question to be asked?)
OpenCFML has nothing to do with Open Source ColdFusion projects, when you hear OpenCFML think about the language itself not the built-in tag set, CF Frameworks or even systems like mango/mura.
The one great thing about an open project is the ability to use it in ways it was never meant to be used.
The best thing about ACF is it does exactly what you would expect it to do.
The only division I can see in the community at this point is a lack of education on the issue, or at least the unwillingness and possibly disregard for the topic.
Either way I am utterly fascinated by the community's sincere passion behind their tools of choice and the goings-on with my daily twitter feed.
Dec 9, 2010 at 12:34 PM @John,
I agree that probably enough has been said here and I'm curious to see the response in the next episode. But I just wanted to say that I'm sure nobody has a problem with people offering their opinions. In fact, the show would probably be quite dry if it was just a news show with no editorializing. However, let's try to make sure that we're dealing with INFORMED opinions. For example when you see statements like "ColdFusion sucks because it doesn't scale and forces you to mix markup with logic" (I still see these kinds of comments) -- this is clearly an opinion, BUT it's obvious this person doesn't have all the facts. While you've had your share of rants and contentions on the RIAPodcast, I've always felt that they came from a position of knowledge on the subject. I haven't felt that to be the case sometimes on CFHour. I'm hoping the guys will take all this criticism as constructively as they can and it will result in a better show.
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:07 PM Dave and Michael, I've been following the comments and just don't want my suggestion to get lost: that you reach out to the opencfsummit people and just have them on your next show. Do you have plans to do so?
It's got to be hard putting this show together and a stumble here or there is to be expected. But the show still serves an important role in our community and our community should stand with you by dialing down the drama and just constructively collaborating on what's best for the language we all love. That means, if you invite other pov's on to the show and they decline or go mental on you, then at least everyone can see you tried.
My guess is it would make a great show and that everyone is more on the same page than not. How else do you explain the continued liveliness and productivity of such as small community as the cfml community?
peace.
Dec 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM @John M, I could understand if the hosts were not informed sometimes but whenever I have listened to this podcast I feel like Sean mentions.
As for Dave's comment about OpenBD and Railo not adding anything significant to the ColdFusion world. Without looking anything up, I can mention the cluster scope from Railo and OpenBD's Google App Engine (GAE) port. OpenBD has a cool in-browser debugger like Seaside in SmallTalk.
Dec 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM Off late I am a little on & off on CF development but I have been trying to follow this thread. I always had great respect for people like Sean Corfield for a long time and don't care much about which CF engine to choose to be a fanboi. (Adobe & Railo is what I have worked on)
Obviously Adobe is a commercial entity and would do things that would be seen as devil or may be. And Railo (and perhaps BD) being opensource would do things that would be perceived as all sainthood or may be.
I guess all of us need to think about whether Adobe is always devil and if Railo (/BD) is always saint.
Adobe (Allaire/MM) created the created the community and will always be passionate about it. Railo promised to grow the community. Well all CFers are passionate :)
So the question to be asked is -
Is Adobe doing enough for the community? And
Is Railo doing enough to grow the community?
What was openBD promise? Sorry I haven't followed much of them.
I think with Adobe being commercial, lot of information has to be inferred. Well, I would love to get more direct information. To me, CF Builder scores very highly in this regard.
But with Railo, being open source, they can share this information publicly. Well I would love to hear about this from Railo in every conference, the attempt that they have made to grow the community, and the real numbers that they have got that indicate how many folks have the community acquired from non-CF community. And a good number to share would be how many developers Railo has got from non-CF vs existing CF (Adobe or BD) background.
In the openness of opencfsummit, let us ask Railo/BD to share this number in the conference.
And in the closeness of Adobe, let us ask Adobe to be more open so that they can be questioned on their efforts.
Dec 9, 2010 at 3:56 PM Wow, 37 comments?
Well, 'll give you, Mike & Dave props for leaving these (sometimes negative) comments stand.
I've known other similar podcasts (who shall remain nameless) where controversial posts were mysteriously deleted or moderated out of existence, so...good on you. :D
Dec 9, 2010 at 4:10 PM @Mike Davis
I respect everyones opinions. We leave the comments on the shows open and unmoderated so everyone can speak theirs. The thought never crossed my mind to remove any of them.
--Dave
Dec 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM Wow, one of the longest reads for comments I have ever read through on a podcast!
I have to also say I appreciate the work Dave & Mike to do this podcast, there are not many CF based podcasts these days that keep doing a weekly show and I can easily understand must take a lot of time to prepare and publish them!
(Please do note I use the words "I" & "Personally" :) )
What I do have to say on the matter of the Adobe Vs OpenBD/Railo Engines is that at the end of the day they let CFML based developers build applications in a common language. Why fight when all these engines allow for more people to develop with CFML!!
I use CF9 Enterprise and Railo, my company is an Adobe partner but also I like to think it has a good relationship with the Railo team so I can not understand why people would want to fight about which engine people should or shouldn't use.
Personally I think this is something the 2/3 sides need to work out and come to an understanding that Adobe CF / Railo Engine / OpenBD Engine all have good & bad points / pro's & con's. To say "But when you b!tch that you can't do something, you may want to look at the real engine" is not the thing to say (sorry Dave!) when I can say that about the other side too, where was Adobe CF Engine amazon S3 support (functions etc) when my companies client needed it and Railo had already added it. Then of course the other way round cfscript has now been fully added to Railo but CF already had it and so on and so on.
You agreed on this weeks show that competition is a good thing, gets companies creating a better product look at the iPhone Vs Android. I love Apple but the company phones I picked were HTC Android phones both have good and bad points, competition brings out the best. Now with iPhone Vs Android I can understand these sorts of fighting but not for CFML Engines.
The real goal is to make users understand that there are many ways to use CFML over PHP, Ruby, Perl and so on. (Just to note fully agree with Mike on the Wordpress easy to setup for clients sites who want it now Really love wordpress!!)
You must also remember Adobe CF engine costs a good amount, its not cheap which I fully understand why (please can no one list why it costs. e.g. paid support etc I appreciate all of that for paid applications & software gives you) but when a engine is released which is free and offers features like Railo's web administrator and fine may not have everything that Adobes CF engine has but dam near it, then thats a good thing to have available for some one who can not afford Adobe CF or for hosting services may want to offer a web administrator to a user on a shared service.
Hope not to sound lame but we are all on the same side at the end of the day.
Now is my comment post the longest?? :)
Dec 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM Well said Jonathan.
Dec 9, 2010 at 11:35 PM @Mike Henke @Sean - I understand. It can be frustrating to hear or read something that is wrong. But if they get something wrong, simply call in or post a comment. These things are always a work in progress. I thought Sean's comment of them being the "Fox News" of the community a bit below the belt. Fox News has a political agenda for misinformation. CFHour is a couple of guys talking tech and voicing their opinions. There isn't any hidden agenda from what I could tell, and they seem completely open to feedback.
I think we forget the format of the show. Dave had some comments and at that point, he can't easily call up Sean or Matt for a "live" response. But, naturally, it can be expected that Matt or Sean will be guests on the next show :) Maybe Adam can be on as well, that could be fun :)
I hope the new open source CFML conference is successful, and it appears they're inviting Adobe in as well. So that is great. There was an important point on the show where they mention that when we talk about open source we tend to think of the CFML engines. There's plenty of things Adobe does in the OSS world and we shouldn't forget that.
There was some discussion about what open source is on this show. That's a pretty big topic and everyone has their own thoughts on the topic. I think the following two links might help clear those points up.
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Jun 11, 2011 at 4:49 AM Nice words John T Hain