Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 22 Nov 2005, at 21:26, Marielle Lange wrote: David Bovill wrote: Government contracts do not require that all tools and code used is open source (I think this would not even be legal). Unfortunately, this is not clear. I have been in discussion with the guys of this project: http://eduforge.org/projects/exe/. I tried to lure them into using revolution to develop open source. They told me they couldn't because their current contract impose the exclusive use of open source software and tools. Did a little checking - interesting project! Unusual policy / reply though? Even SourceForge is fine with allowing Revolution based open source projects (I have a couple of such projects registered but not used as moving to SVN - SourceForge is very slow). It's a New Zealand based initiative? Also appears to have nothing much to do with government funding / contracts? If so it is entirely up to them how they set their own membership criteria for projects (law doesn't enter into the picture). As for government based tenders - I have yet to come across one which rules out proprietary tools (even in the deliverables) - just an indicated preference. Admittedly this is mainly UK / EU based. In my discussions with people / funders with regard to this - there was some indication that this was because it was considered to fall foul of anti-competition laws. There was also a strong suggestion that this was largely in response to very strong Microsoft lobbying at EU level specifically targeted at minimising the impact of open source on government contracts. Nothing really clear here - just gossip - so don't quote me on it. But i would be interested in any examples of clear government tenders / explicit policies that do insist on only pure open source tools being used? AFAIK this is rarely if ever the case, and if so it comes down to marketing / lobbying at the level of the jury. How many "open source zealots" are represented, and how well are we able to communicate that Revolution can play an important role in effective delivery of open source strategies / migration in government sectors? Being able to point to a successful open source project in which Revolution plays a key development role would swing many of these people. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:38, Richard Gaskin wrote: But in terms of contracting with governments which require open source software, I think that leaves us out even if our part of a solution is open source since we, like Flash, Director, Toolbook, and xCode developers, rely on proprietary components to get the job done. David Bovill wrote: Government contracts do not require that all tools and code used is open source (I think this would not even be legal). Unfortunately, this is not clear. I have been in discussion with the guys of this project: http://eduforge.org/projects/exe/. I tried to lure them into using revolution to develop open source. They told me they couldn't because their current contract impose the exclusive use of open source software and tools. It remains that participation will always be limited by the fact that a paid license is necessary to be in a position to collaborate to an open source project. David Bovill wrote: I think you may have had too many dinners with Richard Stallman - real world open source projects are, and will increasingly become hybrids of closed and open components within a clear "open strategy" in which any closed source components can be replaced by open ones within reasonable development constraints and budgets. This is obviously a solution. Eventually have some components coded in a code interpreted by revolution and use revolution as a kind of player rather than proprietary development environment. ... BTW, I cannot resist the invitation of your title. We were living together BUT we are now happily married :-). We had a great time! Marielle Marielle Lange (PhD), Psycholinguist Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/ Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org Supporting Education Technologists http:// revolution.lexicall.org ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 22 Nov 2005, at 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: xara http://www.xara.com/ ? ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Quoting David Bovill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 21 Nov 2005, at 22:03, Mathewson wrote: I believe that it would, ultimately, be in RR's interest to release a FREE (as in totally free) version of RR for Linux - possibly modified from current Linux RR versions so that it cannot be used to manufacture standalones for commercial platforms. The right sort of license would allow the open source code only to run on open source platforms with a dual licence for closed platforms allowing charging. This would enable open source developers to contribute improvements which RunRev could bundle and sell on Windows and OSX. Mind you I know of no such license (yet). THe Guys at xara do this. Inded this may remind Richmond of his old OS. Xara was !Artworks on RISC OS :-) they sell to Windows and give it free to mac and linux. Cheers Bob ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 22:03, Mathewson wrote: I believe that it would, ultimately, be in RR's interest to release a FREE (as in totally free) version of RR for Linux - possibly modified from current Linux RR versions so that it cannot be used to manufacture standalones for commercial platforms. The right sort of license would allow the open source code only to run on open source platforms with a dual licence for closed platforms allowing charging. This would enable open source developers to contribute improvements which RunRev could bundle and sell on Windows and OSX. Mind you I know of no such license (yet). ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:50, Richard Gaskin wrote: But the bottom line for us Rev developers is that if a customer requires a truly open source solution then the source must be open -- that's not the case with Rev, Windows, or OS X, so it rules out solutions dependent on any of those packages. Spoken like a true open source purist! I think you may have had too many dinners with Richard Stallman - real world open source projects are, and will increasingly become hybrids of closed and open components within a clear "open strategy" in which any closed source components can be replaced by open ones within reasonable development constraints and budgets. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
> I never claimed that partially-open projects could not be > made with Rev. > All I said is that if a purchaser requires a FULLY OPEN > solution, by definition that cannot include Rev (or for that > matter Windows, OS X, or any other non-open parts). > > Partially-open solutions are a separate matter, and the > acceptability of partially-open solutions for a specific > purchasing agent will depend on that purchasing agent's requirements. Before Microsoft became so big, they had to put their source code in escrow to get very big accounts to buy; those big accounts required this because they didn't want to have a necessary product disappear in a financial crisis. Same with government bodies (and MS still does this). There's nothing wrong with it. Id like to point out here Richard's emphasis of *requirements* vs need/want. What governments and big institutions need/want/require, they can get usually by direct negotiation because of the financial value to the publisher of doing so. My point is, the GPL isnt a necessity for anyone -- it is a "want" driven by near religious fervor. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks President Paradigma Software, Inc Joining Worlds of Information Deploy True Client-Server Database Solutions Royalty Free with Valentina Developer Network http://www.paradigmasoft.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Mathewson wrote: PCs running FREE (as in, you only pay the IT-bloke to install the stuff) software flattens the playing field quite effectively. A usable installer would level the playing field even more. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Bob Warren's description of the Brazilian situation almost exactly mirrors that of Bulgaria: "Pirate" Windows everywhere: not because Bulgarians are crooks or lack morals (well, there are a few dubious characters lurking here and there; mainly in the government), but shear necessity caused by the undesirable fact that Microsoft is the king of the hill and the average Bulgarian is rather worried about how to buy a decent pair of shoes for his kid rather than worry about the licence fee for the OS or 'Office'. Sooner or later the European Union will absorb Bulgaria, and the happy software police will start poking their noses into every little 2-bit company and carting off their PCs with a Windows OS on it. Some forward thinking folk have paid me to install Ubuntu onto their PCs I charge about the same as an avrage family's weekly shopping - i.e. about 5% of the price of Licensed Windows. As I mentioned in my previous posting about my political stance: surely it is only right and fair if we expect everybody in the world to stand on their own 2 feet and not sponge off others, or poor countries sponge off richer ones (whether by choice or necessity) that they start from a level playing field. PCs running FREE (as in, you only pay the IT-bloke to install the stuff) software flattens the playing field quite effectively. Now, there will always be people, mainly in the richer countries, who prefer to use Mac or Win (or RISC OS - sorry, my hobby horse), and will pay both for their OS and for their licensed copies of RR or what-have-you. As individuals and nations elsewhere become richer they may decide to change over to Commercial software alternatives. If (for instance) all the kids in Uganda learn to program using RR on Ubuntu, then when and if they transfer to Win or Mac they will automatically seek out Win/Mac versions of RR. At present nobody is making any money out of software sales in Bulgaria - because the Bulgarians are helping themselves - so nobody will lose anyhting if they are encouraged to opt for open source; and, just possibly, that may eventually lead them to pay money for software they have invested their time in in mastering. I believe that it would, ultimately, be in RR's interest to release a FREE (as in totally free) version of RR for Linux - possibly modified from current Linux RR versions so that it cannot be used to manufacture standalones for commercial platforms. sincerely, Richmond __ See Mathewson's software at: http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html ___ --- The Think Different Store http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/ For All Your Mac Gear --- ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
David Bovill wrote: On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:16, Richard Gaskin wrote: Depends on the license requirements, doesn't it? That is, even if I inherit enough wealth to be able to afford the luxury of working for free, at the end of the day the RunRev engine isn't open source so it's not possible for me to deliver truly open materials which rely on it. Hey i thought you had made it in the land of plenty :) While I do donate more of my personal GDP to non-profits than most nations (10% by company policy), I haven't yet become wealthy enough to do so full-time. That's the goal but I'm not there yet, so I still charge for my products and most of my custom development. More seriously this is not all-or-nothing. It is entirely possible to deliver open source solutions in Rev (what is the license for the Metacard IDE again?). The MC IDE is governed under the X11 license, included in full in the Licensing window accessible from About, with appropriate reverences to the proprietary license for the Rev engine needed to run it. Also it is possible to have mixed strategies based on open file formats - so you can both release all the Rev code under an appropriate OSI certified open license and allow full interoperability with other open source code. The issue here is not that it is "not possible" to do this, but that in order to win these arguments in these contract negotiations it would really help if RunRev had a decent open source strategy that they marketed - this should be built upon Revolutions strengths in *nix platform as a rapid application development tool. Saying that this is not possible is not only untrue but damaging (for some of us at least). The only thing "damaging" here is a lack of clarity with regard to these purchasing requirements, of which there are many varieties. I don't think it would be practical to attempt to list all requirements of all government agencies here. Yes, of course there are many partially-open projects, and as per the LGPL, X11, and other liberal licenses there's nothing stopping any Rev developer from making something that's partially open source. But all Rev-based work requires a proprietary engine to run it, which is not open, not end-user modifiable, and does not meet any definition of open source. The Rev license is pretty clear about its terms; if the difficulty is in finding an open source message in there then the difficulty is in the search rather than what's being searched. I never claimed that partially-open projects could not be made with Rev. All I said is that if a purchaser requires a FULLY OPEN solution, by definition that cannot include Rev (or for that matter Windows, OS X, or any other non-open parts). Partially-open solutions are a separate matter, and the acceptability of partially-open solutions for a specific purchasing agent will depend on that purchasing agent's requirements. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
David Bovill wrote: On 21 Nov 2005, at 19:20, J. Landman Gay wrote: Mathewson wrote: Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . . I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE. Correct. However, note that since your copy of the IDE won't be licensed, all your scripts will be limited to ten lines. Unless you have a Rev license Actually, the MC IDE currently requires a separate MetaCard reg key, which can be obtained on request if you're currently a Rev Enterprise customer. So some Rev licensees can get one, but others must upgrade. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Dan Shafer wrote: Richard I know you know this, but just to keep the conversation clear, "open source" doesn't mean "free of charge." Not on any level. As Richard Stallman patiently explained it over dinner in Chinatown to me once, there's "free" as in "gratis" and "free" as in "freedom", and open source means both. Under most open sources licenses in some circumstances you can charge for the object code, but the sources must still be available so the only difference between gratis and non-gratis is five minutes to run the make file. A lot of open source software is available for free. Some isn't (MySQL comes to mind immediately). Review the licenses for MySQL. There are two. One is proprietary, and carries a fee. The other is free of charge and the source is open and modifiable, but only within the confines of the GPL. So the open source version of MySQL is definitely free, in both senses of the word. But proprietary use is governed by the proprietary non-GPL license. But lots and lots of programmers make lots and lots of money *using* open source and *that's* generally the requirement governments are placing on these projects. IOW, they don't insist the software they buy be free of charge, just built on freely distributable bases. That may be, and there may be variances from government to government. But the bottom line for us Rev developers is that if a customer requires a truly open source solution then the source must be open -- that's not the case with Rev, Windows, or OS X, so it rules out solutions dependent on any of those packages. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:00:01, Andre Garzia wrote: >I think I must step in since I am the only Brazilian in the list. You may be the only "true" Brazilian on the list, but hopefully I might pass as an imitation! After 30 years in Brazil they make you Brazilian whether you like it or not - which is my case (I've been here nearly 32 years). I am not qualified to discuss the history of Linux in Brazil, so I thank you for your insights. I just know one or two things clearly: 1. Until recently, most computing in Brazil was done on PCs, using Windows. MACs were always too expensive for Brazilians, and this seems to be a continuing trend. A shocking example is the MAC Mini that one other contributer mentioned: the manufacturer's recommended price is almost 3 times what it is in the US. 2. The normal way of acquiring software (including Windows) has always been by pirating. This is not because Brazilians like being "dishonest" (if that has any meaning at all in this context) or that they "don't like paying for software" as someone put it recently, but because if they are to accompany modern technology (as they have always done very well), it is the only option open to the great majority of the population. Brazilian salaries are insufficient for survival in a lot of cases. The so-called "minimum salary" in Brazil is just about sufficient to buy the cigarettes I smoke! (No joke.) 3. The writing that is on the wall is that nobody will get beyond Windows XP in this manner. Nor do I imagine that Microsoft and other large software producers have any intention of changing their pricing policies to accommodate the world's poor countries. The rich have to get richer and the poor have to get poorer, and that is the way of ultra-capitalism and the egocentric proponents of it. My conclusion is that the adoption of Linux in Brazil is not so much an option as a necessity, and that it is exactly that neccessity that is providing the driving-force for a move to Linux. Until recently, Linux has been too unreliable to use to any significant degree, but that state of affairs is changing fast. Give it another 2 years Personally, I would do ANYTHING to escape the clutches of Microsoft, especially after the VB6 fiasco. I think that trends are not only things we try to evaluate in order to predict the future, but what we establish ourselves because we think they are the right (or perhaps only) paths to follow. Personally, I couldn't care less about speculation as to what other people may or may not decide to do. Here in Brazil, Linux is the only potentially happy solution to a situation which profoundly disagreeable. Long live (Ubuntu and Kurumin) Linux and Runtime Revolution! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Richard I know you know this, but just to keep the conversation clear, "open source" doesn't mean "free of charge." Not on any level. A lot of open source software is available for free. Some isn't (MySQL comes to mind immediately). But lots and lots of programmers make lots and lots of money *using* open source and *that's* generally the requirement governments are placing on these projects. IOW, they don't insist the software they buy be free of charge, just built on freely distributable bases. Again, I know you know this, but I felt the urge to clarify. (Can't help it. I'm a writer first.) On Nov 21, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: David Bovill wrote: > Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell > applications to - it is about the quality of developers > you can attract I could write apps for the Pope, but if he won't give me something in return it'll be just as hard for me to pay my rent as writing for slobs. Classism, in any form, doesn't determine viability. > and the ability to deliver intranet I've been shipping internanet and extranet apps for years, for people who feel my time is worth giving something back for. > and government contracts (at least here in Europe) which > specify support for open platforms. It is also about being > able to leverage the huge amount of "free" code that is > available on this platform and integrate it into the project. Depends on the license requirements, doesn't it? That is, even if I inherit enough wealth to be able to afford the luxury of working for free, at the end of the day the RunRev engine isn't open source so it's not possible for me to deliver truly open materials which rely on it. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought" From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Mathewson wrote: What might be rather a good idea is if people in the know (i.e. Richard Gaskin, RR staff members, or the people involved in the MC IDE development) made an explicit statement as to what is FREE (as in totally and utterly free), what is SEMI-FREE (Um ?) and what is COMMERCIAL (as in totally proprietary). The license is the best place to start. The MC IDE license spells out its own terms, and points to the Rev license which governs the engine. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 19:19, Mathewson wrote: My wife is Bulgarian, her father was ina Communist prison camp . . . Goli Otok? Earliert his year I went to Sofia (Capital of Bulgaria) and listened to Richard Stallman, and reached the follwoing conclusions: 1. He is a long-haired hippy rather like the ones in Brazil (mind you, I bet he can't speech portugese). 2. I agreed with almost everything he said - BUT not for the silly, loony-lefty reasons he gave. Mr Stallman is a little difficult. However, I do think that there is a place for open source initiatives; especially in places such as (and if any one wants to point out that I am not politically correct; don't waste your time - I am a fairly right-wing reactionary - so there) Africa (or, to put it really crudely; the places where the colonial powers made the mistake of leaving without bothering to educate the local people so they could get ahead rather than become prey to horrible dicators; c.f. Mugabe, Idi Amin, and so on), India and the rest of the sub-continent, where a very large section of the population doesn't stand a chance to get on the escalator which will give them a chance in a proper meritocracy. The reasons local government in many regions support open source, the reason the EU and Brasil and Spain and support open source is that money that would be spent on largely US bases licenses can instead be spent on training and local skills acquisition. It is a myth to think that open source is free or saves money - it simply redirects the cost to developer time, while empowering those very developers to go on and create new cool stuff (locally). We largely have left wing long haired Americans to thank for this very un-american economic attitude. However it is absolutely no surprise that this comes from the US - as it is about freedom of knowledge (read speech) in the digital era. Open source may be about (facilitate) "sharing" - but their is nothing left wing about the desire to stimulate innovation in the market by ensuring a healthy transfer of knowledge and avoiding monopoly. Can i suggest that we move the political aspect of this discourse to a suitable Yahoo Group? ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
I assume that in DreamCard I can write an OSI-certifiable "thingie" that is a DM stack, with StackRunner bundled with it. Charles Hartman On Nov 21, 2005, at 1:20 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: Mathewson wrote: Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . . I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE. Correct. However, note that since your copy of the IDE won't be licensed, all your scripts will be limited to ten lines. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 19:20, J. Landman Gay wrote: Mathewson wrote: Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . . I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE. Correct. However, note that since your copy of the IDE won't be licensed, all your scripts will be limited to ten lines. Unless you have a Rev license - then you have an open source IDE built on top of a proprietary engine - similar to flash and not too far even from Java where the developer has effectively no control of the runtime bite-code compiler which is free but not open. Java projects are generally thought of as pure open source - Rev projects could be marketed in a very similar fashion. With Java you often pay mucho for professional development environments - though there are "free" open source versions available. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
My wife is Bulgarian, her father was ina Communist prison camp . . . Oh, Dear, Richmond gets personal again! Yes, he does . . . I would like to take issue with Senor Garzia: (and, I suppose this all comes down to politics) I am not a socialist, and not a communist, and not a supporter of pie-in-the-sky ideas propped up by some sage's half-baked ideology that fails to take human nature into account. Earliert his year I went to Sofia (Capital of Bulgaria) and listened to Richard Stallman, and reached the follwoing conclusions: 1. He is a long-haired hippy rather like the ones in Brazil (mind you, I bet he can't speech portugese). 2. I agreed with almost everything he said - BUT not for the silly, loony-lefty reasons he gave. 3. I want a world where there is NO social handout system; BUT where everybody has a reasonably level playing-field to start off from: so they can't come whining, subsequently, about being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, as an excuse for their laziness or turpitude. I am also not a utopian who wishes to sweep away Microsoft and Macintosh for a 'new millenium' of open source software full of holes. To prove a point, I'm writing this to you in Firefox (an open source browser) running on Windows XP (not open source unless I'm very stupid and missed something). I do 90% of my programming on a number of Macintosh computers with Mac OS X that cost me a whole lot of money which I earned with my own, fair, used-to-be lily-white hands. However, I do think that there is a place for open source initiatives; especially in places such as (and if any one wants to point out that I am not politically correct; don't waste your time - I am a fairly right-wing reactionary - so there) Africa (or, to put it really crudely; the places where the colonial powers made the mistake of leaving without bothering to educate the local people so they could get ahead rather than become prey to horrible dicators; c.f. Mugabe, Idi Amin, and so on), India and the rest of the sub-continent, where a very large section of the population doesn't stand a chance to get on the escalator which will give them a chance in a proper meritocracy. What is a big sadness to me is that open-source software is associated with lefties, 'pinkos', 'long-haired loonies' or whatever, when the need to use open-source should be seen not as a political stance at all, but as a way to increase everybody's level of knowledge, wealth and so on. Now, one day a week, from February, I will be offering Bulgarian school teachers, free programming classes using the Novell RR 2.2.1 on Ubuntu - all their school computers (such as they are - few) run on Microsoft Windows 98 - it is their problem as to how they transfer that empowering knowledge; either by badgering the BG government to buy licences for RR, or by badgering the govt/local ed. authority to go open source. Why am I offering these free classes ? - because it will work as an advertisement for both my language school and for my freelance computer installation and programming work. sincerely, Richmond Mathewson __ See Mathewson's software at: http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html ___ --- The Think Different Store http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/ For All Your Mac Gear --- ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Mathewson wrote: Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . . I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE. Correct. However, note that since your copy of the IDE won't be licensed, all your scripts will be limited to ten lines. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Hoping you would reply :) On 21 Nov 2005, at 18:00, Andre Garzia wrote: That's what happens when goverment decides to migrate itself to linux without thinking that in the Real world, people might need proprietary platforms, the zealots excuse is: "if we all move, we'll create momentum to F/OSS so that better apps will be created." ... Usually after this question, they start barking at me for being a "capitalist bastard" Yep - was not so bad in Munich - but still... in the project here, we inherited Linux based Terminal Servers (Novel) - great for watching video and tv / media work??? One of the reasons why I would hesitate to embrace the "thin client" ideal of Dans is due to this experience - we've now replaced these with mini-macs - almost no difference in price. However again this is not "all or nothing" - I can see reintroducing the terminal server approach later - and have made web services and AJAX / Rails type frameworks a key part of the online project. This is firmly an open source and an open content project - and we use Revolution. Now, why linux is important for me and why I wanted RunRev to support it? There's another goverment project called PC Conectado, which is aimed in building cheap computers running linux for the masses. There will be two kinds of computers, the really cheap ones that will run linux, and the more expensive ones that might run windows, Zeta, whatever. I am talking about millions of computers, not thousands, millions. One contract with this goverment for bundling your software in the machine and boom, millions of users... That project is a good idea, the bad part is that some spoiled brats in the goverment are ruining it. This is exactly why some good marketing support for an open source strategy would be so effective in getting Revolution used in some seriously large initiatives. We all now how easy it is for us to deliver quality applications (even on Linux save for the video support), and outdo anything that traditional open source developers can create in the same time frame by a factor of 3 or 4. But to do that we need to convince the "zealots" and "spoiled brats in the government" - which is not that hard - they like cool toys that can deliver as much as the next person. Missing is the business strategy and the marketing. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On Nov 21, 2005, at 2:13 PM, David Bovill wrote: Basically they insist on open source solutions for Government contracts - also very big supporters of open content (Creative Commons) with Gliberto Gil (Minister of Culture and renowned musician) being largely responsible for getting Creative Commons to add the sampling license to their suite of licenses. I must confess I do not know the details in Brasil - anyone? But here in Europe out of the last 4 government contracts for projects two virtually insisted on open source and the other two looked on them favourably. The forthcoming EU IST5 call I am helping with is no exception. Heh, I think I must step in since I am the only Brazilian in the list. Brazil is moving towards linux, there are many popular distros made by Brazilian companies and lots (and I mean lots) of Open Source Zealots involved with all kinds of branches of the goverment. To understand this move one should understand two things, first is called Tropicalia which was a cultural movement akin to hippie culture that moved much of Brazil during the dictatorship era. Tropicalia was rebellion using music, poetry and whichever cultural means they could found, it was getting foreign culture (Ie Rock Music) and modifing it so it became Brazilian (Thats why it's called Tropicalia and Antropofagia Cultural). It was not like some other nations that were trying to ban foreign culture, it was like embrace and extend, I think the phrase was: "let us use what is good by tropicalize the thing.". Gilberto Gil was there and so were others. Other point to understand is that Brazil is deep linked with some kind of Robin Hood Philosophy where we're under some evil rule by foreign powers and must steal and give things to the poor. It's more metaphorical than reality. So how this translate to software? Zealots in Brazil see Microsoft as evil power that creates proprietary software that costs tons of money to the goverment. Solution migrate everything to free software and defy those evil powers. The whole goverment moved on that direction, and when Brazilian goverment act with tropicalia and robin hood behaviour in mind, they will not be stopped. Now that you have the background. Let us talk about two consequences here. Our singing and dancing minister said: "free software is the way!". I study at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (AKA UFF) at the school known as IACS (Social Comunications and Arts Institute), in our campus are the journalism, advertising and film schools. When goverment decided to run on linux the first thing that happened was a task force entered the campus, formatted all machines, installed Red Hat. Consequence, work stopped, many classes stopped. No one could use Linux, the office suite format would not cross platforms, trying to start a document at university for late editing at home with windows was a sure way to loose everything. Unicode didn't work. Keyboard mapping didn't work, clipboard didn't work... we're still trying to solve this issues. The journalism school stopped all classes for Desktop Publishing since there's no suite for those tasks in linux, the advertising school is forcing GIMP down the throat of the students when all they want is Corel Draw back. When all this happened, one of the film school teachers came to me and whispered: "Andre, thank God tonight because we use Macs and they will never try to install linux on our machines.". Yes on the film school we're stuck with MacOS 9 and final cut pro 2 but it's better than Red Hat for me. That's what happens when goverment decides to migrate itself to linux without thinking that in the Real world, people might need proprietary platforms, the zealots excuse is: "if we all move, we'll create momentum to F/OSS so that better apps will be created." my answer is always the same: "Adobe has a team of highly skilled engineers, and by that I mean real graduation not late night hacking, and it took them years to create PageMaker and InDesign, do you really think that half a dozen spare time coders that usually can't coordinate among themselves will be able to deliver a similar solution in less than a couple years?". Usually after this question, they start barking at me for being a "capitalist bastard" Now, why linux is important for me and why I wanted RunRev to support it? There's another goverment project called PC Conectado, which is aimed in building cheap computers running linux for the masses. There will be two kinds of computers, the really cheap ones that will run linux, and the more expensive ones that might run windows, Zeta, whatever. I am talking about millions of computers, not thousands, millions. One contract with this goverment for bundling your software in the machine and boom, millions of users... That project is a good idea, the bad part is that some spoiled brats
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:49, Mathewson wrote: What might be rather a good idea is if people in the know (i.e. Richard Gaskin, RR staff members, or the people involved in the MC IDE development) made an explicit statement as to what is FREE (as in totally and utterly free), what is SEMI-FREE (Um ?) and what is COMMERCIAL (as in totally proprietary). This is exactly what would constitute an properly thought out (and then hopefully marketed) open source strategy. Well said! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but . . . I believe that it is perfectly legal to download the Metacard IDE, download a copy of DC/RR, and then transfer the RR engine across to the Metacard IDE. I also know that DC/RR is a commercial product. However, I also know that Novell have some sort of agreement with RR re the Linux version of RR 2.2. So Richard Gaskin's point about Open Source (as in completely and utterly free) versus commercial (as in completely and utterly proprietary) seems a black-and-white explanation/view that doesn't really represent the situation accurately. I am happily programming away on a Linux box with Novell's 'FREE' version of RR 2.2, and also happily programmking away with my licensed version of DC 2.6 (recently upgraded to 2.6.1). What might be rather a good idea is if people in the know (i.e. Richard Gaskin, RR staff members, or the people involved in the MC IDE development) made an explicit statement as to what is FREE (as in totally and utterly free), what is SEMI-FREE (Um ?) and what is COMMERCIAL (as in totally proprietary). At present I am working on a series of EFL programs for teaching Primary Children English - some of the programming is taking place in my Mac (with my licensed DC 2.6.1) and some on my Ubuntu Pentium 3 (with my Novell RR 2.2.1). As well as using the resultant Linux standalones in my own school I should like to let the Ubuntu organisation have them for FREE (as in totally free) release to Ubuntu users elsewhere in the world. Now as far as I understand standalones made with RR are the property of the programmer; so I am free (as in totally free) to do what I like with them. Sincerely, Richmond Mathewson __ See Mathewson's software at: http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html ___ --- The Think Different Store http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/ For All Your Mac Gear --- ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:16, Richard Gaskin wrote: Depends on the license requirements, doesn't it? That is, even if I inherit enough wealth to be able to afford the luxury of working for free, at the end of the day the RunRev engine isn't open source so it's not possible for me to deliver truly open materials which rely on it. Hey i thought you had made it in the land of plenty :) More seriously this is not all-or-nothing. It is entirely possible to deliver open source solutions in Rev (what is the license for the Metacard IDE again?). Also it is possible to have mixed strategies based on open file formats - so you can both release all the Rev code under an appropriate OSI certified open license and allow full interoperability with other open source code. The issue here is not that it is "not possible" to do this, but that in order to win these arguments in these contract negotiations it would really help if RunRev had a decent open source strategy that they marketed - this should be built upon Revolutions strengths in *nix platform as a rapid application development tool. Saying that this is not possible is not only untrue but damaging (for some of us at least). On 21 Nov 2005, at 17:19, Richard Gaskin wrote: OIC. Thanks. Thought it was somehow different from the Indian or European policies. Seems pretty much in line generally speaking, and since we use a proprietary engine here they all exclude us. NO IT DOES NOT! ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
David Bovill wrote: On 21 Nov 2005, at 16:56, Richard Gaskin wrote: Charles Hartman wrote: Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without good Linux support for the reasons above. And the Brazilian government's policy is worth keeping in mind, and watching as a plausible trend. What is that policy? Basically they insist on open source solutions for Government contracts - also very big supporters of open content (Creative Commons) with Gliberto Gil (Minister of Culture and renowned musician) being largely responsible for getting Creative Commons to add the sampling license to their suite of licenses. OIC. Thanks. Thought it was somehow different from the Indian or European policies. Seems pretty much in line generally speaking, and since we use a proprietary engine here they all exclude us. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
David Bovill wrote: > Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell > applications to - it is about the quality of developers > you can attract I could write apps for the Pope, but if he won't give me something in return it'll be just as hard for me to pay my rent as writing for slobs. Classism, in any form, doesn't determine viability. > and the ability to deliver intranet I've been shipping internanet and extranet apps for years, for people who feel my time is worth giving something back for. > and government contracts (at least here in Europe) which > specify support for open platforms. It is also about being > able to leverage the huge amount of "free" code that is > available on this platform and integrate it into the project. Depends on the license requirements, doesn't it? That is, even if I inherit enough wealth to be able to afford the luxury of working for free, at the end of the day the RunRev engine isn't open source so it's not possible for me to deliver truly open materials which rely on it. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On 21 Nov 2005, at 16:56, Richard Gaskin wrote: Charles Hartman wrote: Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without good Linux support for the reasons above. And the Brazilian government's policy is worth keeping in mind, and watching as a plausible trend. What is that policy? Basically they insist on open source solutions for Government contracts - also very big supporters of open content (Creative Commons) with Gliberto Gil (Minister of Culture and renowned musician) being largely responsible for getting Creative Commons to add the sampling license to their suite of licenses. I must confess I do not know the details in Brasil - anyone? But here in Europe out of the last 4 government contracts for projects two virtually insisted on open source and the other two looked on them favourably. The forthcoming EU IST5 call I am helping with is no exception. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Charles Hartman wrote: Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without good Linux support for the reasons above. And the Brazilian government's policy is worth keeping in mind, and watching as a plausible trend. What is that policy? -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
On Nov 21, 2005, at 9:21 AM, David Bovill wrote: Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell applications to - it is about the quality of developers you can attract, and the ability to deliver intranet, and government contracts (at least here in Europe) which specify support for open platforms. It is also about being able to leverage the huge amount of "free" code that is available on this platform and integrate it into the project. Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without good Linux support for the reasons above. And the Brazilian government's policy is worth keeping in mind, and watching as a plausible trend. Charles Hartman On 18 Nov 2005, at 21:17, Richard Gaskin wrote: I don't know RunRev's position, but for myself I see Linux as a challenging beast with two heads: one head speaks loudly and generates a lot of buzz value, but the other head tells me its desktop users are relatively few and only a small percentage of those like paying for the software they use. On my side, supporting Linux is a checkbox and an installer and I still don't bother. On RunRev's side the committment is much more extensive, and it remains to be seen how directly profitable it is. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Linux support is not about how many desktops you can sell applications to - it is about the quality of developers you can attract, and the ability to deliver intranet, and government contracts (at least here in Europe) which specify support for open platforms. It is also about being able to leverage the huge amount of "free" code that is available on this platform and integrate it into the project. Maybe only 1-2% of your typical desktop customers will be using linux - but I personally would not be using Revolution without good Linux support for the reasons above. On 18 Nov 2005, at 21:17, Richard Gaskin wrote: I don't know RunRev's position, but for myself I see Linux as a challenging beast with two heads: one head speaks loudly and generates a lot of buzz value, but the other head tells me its desktop users are relatively few and only a small percentage of those like paying for the software they use. On my side, supporting Linux is a checkbox and an installer and I still don't bother. On RunRev's side the committment is much more extensive, and it remains to be seen how directly profitable it is. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Mathewson wrote: However, owing to problems associated with the Linux version of RR (mainly with handling media files), I can see a parting of the ways in my crystal ball if RR doesn't make the great leap (well, its not going to be Linux - being the amorphous 'thing' that it is). I don't know RunRev's position, but for myself I see Linux as a challenging beast with two heads: one head speaks loudly and generates a lot of buzz value, but the other head tells me its desktop users are relatively few and only a small percentage of those like paying for the software they use. On my side, supporting Linux is a checkbox and an installer and I still don't bother. On RunRev's side the committment is much more extensive, and it remains to be seen how directly profitable it is. -- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal ___ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
Richmond. On Nov 18, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Mathewson wrote: Maybe it is time for RR/MC to contain an in-built media player that 'travels with it' and standalones ? ? ? I'm not at all sure I agree, even though the *outcome* you depict is desirable. There are standards for media. I'd rather have Rev support those standards than roll its own built-in media player. Writing and supporting such a player would seem to me to be a significant undertaking and I have other, higher priorities in mind for what *I* would like Rev to spend time and resources doing. A quick search reveals there are multiple apps that allow you to use Linux with QT. So is the real problem RR's support for QT or its less- than-stellar support (to date) for Linux? IOW, I'd hate to see RR spend resources building a media player if the real problem is that they need to extend their QT support somehow to embrace Linux. ~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought" From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Living together BUT not married: RR/MC and Linux
I, once upon a time, lived with a woman for a number of years - and we never quite got round to committing ourselves: and, surprise, surprise, we parted ways because we never really learnt to work together. Now I am married and everything is much smoother; even, if one wants to bite near the bone; 'seamless'. alright, alright, Richmond gets all metaphorical . . . However, owing to problems associated with the Linux version of RR (mainly with handling media files), I can see a parting of the ways in my crystal ball if RR doesn't make the great leap (well, its not going to be Linux - being the amorphous 'thing' that it is). I honestly wonder if RR/MC's dependence on Quicktime is not a burden on other platforms as well? It certainly stands in the way of my other great fantasy - RR for RISC OS. Maybe it is time for RR/MC to contain an in-built media player that 'travels with it' and standalones ? ? ? This would certainly make things considerably more "seamless". sincerely, Richmond Mathewson __ See Mathewson's software at: http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html ___ --- The Think Different Store http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/ For All Your Mac Gear --- ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
