Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp - would it not be the best for stability to have the existing release cyle as stable, and those wishing to live on the bleeding edge (and get faster bug fixes and to participate in experimental features) to opt in for the sort of release cycle that others are requesting? This is what I usually do for most of the web based doe I use, those projects that I want stable and basic features i download and install, those requiring the latest features that may not be full tested I download with subversion and update much more often. I'd go for the same model with Rev - though the exact method is up for grabs the principle is clear and standard. It's really just making the beta programme more visible (ie its a plugin and an actively discussed option). I for one have only ever heard of beta testing once or twice as an aside on this list. Stability is usually achieved by getting as much and as early user testing as possible. I'd open things up a bit, with a clear disclaimer, and a plugin along the lines of that being discussed. On 10/06/07, Chipp Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, Updating Rev each time a bug fix is made, could be a dicey proposition, as typcially after a bug is fixed, there still should be unit testing, then more inside testing, then beta testing, then rc testing, etc. to make sure fixing the bug didn't break other stuff. I think Rev has taken the position to do all this in the same cycle, which for a company with limited resources, is a good way (IMO) to go. The existing architecture of course could do just as you suggest. But my biggest fear with a system like this would be we would never end up with a fairly stable release. The complexity of Rev could create unforseen problems when fixing one bug only to see a ripple effect of it creating many more. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/10/07, David Bovill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chipp - would it not be the best for stability to have the existing release cyle as stable, and those wishing to live on the bleeding edge (and get faster bug fixes and to participate in experimental features) to opt in for the sort of release cycle that others are requesting? I believe that is what 'beta testing' is for. It's really just making the beta programme more visible (ie its a plugin and an actively discussed option). I for one have only ever heard of beta testing once or twice as an aside on this list. Stability is usually achieved by getting as much and as early user testing as possible. I'd open things up a bit, with a clear disclaimer, and a plugin along the lines of that being discussed. I know Bill Marriot has been a big proponent of beta-testing here on this list and on the Improve-list. There is a procedure for signing up for beta-testing and getting the updates. The Enterprise users do have access to upcoming beta versions via the current update functionality. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp wrote: Updating Rev each time a bug fix is made, could be a dicey proposition, as typcially after a bug is fixed, there still should be unit testing, then more inside testing, then beta testing, then rc testing, etc. to make sure fixing the bug didn't break other stuff. I think Rev has taken the position to do all this in the same cycle, which for a company with limited resources, is a good way (IMO) to go. The existing architecture of course could do just as you suggest. But my biggest fear with a system like this would be we would never end up with a fairly stable release. The complexity of Rev could create unforseen problems when fixing one bug only to see a ripple effect of it creating many more. -- Chipp, I am just as concerned about stability as you are. But to help explain the basis of my suggestion better, imagine the following situation: You go to a restaurant, sit down, and order your meal. After what seems to be an eternity, the waiter comes to you and says, Well sir, your dinner is ready, but the chef has made such an awful mess in the kitchen that you need to help clean it up for an hour before you can sit down to eat. I imagine your reply would not be very polite! Although it is not an exact parallel, there is something of the essence of this situation in what happens at Rev. The Rev production procedures generate too many bugs, and this needs to be corrected as much as possible. What I have suggested does not subtract from the current production procedures, but I am not sure that it adds to them. However, you are quite right to point out the economic considerations. Apart from the normal procedures of production, testing and final release, I have suggested a post-release cleanup, hopefully to be completed before the next release is due. But don't Rev have to do this anyway? As far as I can see it, you can either prevent bugs, or you can cure them. At the moment, Rev seems to prefer to cure them. I am now suggesting greater prevention, that's all. What also gets in the way is Rev's insistence on exaggerated secrecy about the exact contents of their plans. I appreciate the considerations, but such exaggeration also prevents open user participation in the production process. Your are probably tired of my plugging Ubuntu, but Rev could well take a leaf out of their book. This is what they do, and it works very well: 1. Their exact plans for the next release are published. 2. Work begins on the next release, and a certain amount of work is achieved. 3. As work progresses, they produce a series of alpha releases: alpha 1, alpha 2, alpha 3, and so on. These are completely free for the public to download and test. When members of the public find bugs, they are reported through the normal channels. 4. Finally, they get to the beta stage, where all the additional procedures of global testing are applied. Normally, a single version is all that is necessary. 5. When they are satisfied, the new release is unleashed. There is no signing on or forms to fill in/out to be granted the privilege of participation in alpha or beta testing. All are immediately welcome. The public's participation in alpha releases, beta releases and post-production debugging is identical, and non-beaurocratic. In sum, I would suggest that the best way of offsetting the costs incurred by really adequate bug prevention is to involve the users in the production process. Finally, I would also suggest that no really new ideas are necessary in order to improve things at Rev. You just have to look at what other people do and adapt the good ideas out there to your own needs. 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
Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp: What I didn't mention about Ubuntu's procedure is the following. It after release they find significant bugs, they correct them in a new bugfix version, submitted to the normal procedures of global testing. However, it is the exception rather than the rule. This is NOT what I suggested in my original proposal, but the preparedness to make exceptions in this way if really necessary would also allay your fears about stability I imagine. But I am still not convinced that it would be necessary in the kind of system I proposed. That bugs should occur is natural and normal, even with the best prevention. What matters is the TURNAROUND, i.e. the time between discovering the bug, fixing it, and returning the fix to the user. Three months (or in the case of Linux, 2 years or more) is not good enough. If there was anything wrong with post-production patches downloaded in the way I suggest, you would soon know about it!** And provided they were given absolute priority for correction and the issuing of new patches, the system would still be better than the current one. [** And it should be remembered that even good beta testing doesn't catch everything anyway. A great number of bugs are found post-release, and always will be. But hopefully, these should be the least significant bugs.] 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
Re: WAR ON BUGS [WAS Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev, would do this?)]
Thanks Jacque! :-* 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
Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/8/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But even without a formal open source process, Kevin has said that if someone makes a patcher for the IDE which applies any such changes, they could easily run it to evaluate them and would consider including them. Yep. Sarah and I can attest to that. Imagine my surprise when digging through some IDE code to find the comment Patched by Chipp Walters and Patched by Sarah Reichelt !! If you write a patcher for the IDE, send it along to Rev. Also, it's always wise to be able to UNINSTALL the patch as well. If at all possible, consider writing a plugin instead of a patch. I wrote the altCopyPasteFix plugin for Rev 2.8 which was then not needed for 2.8.1, so I only had to remove it from my toolbar. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/8/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Request submitted for your voting pleasue: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=5134 My comments applied to the enhancement request: I vote against this...(Can I add negative votes?). This functionality can easily be had via a plugin someone can write in 10 minutes. I think you'll create more problems (firewall issues, proxy servers, socket timeouts, etc..) than the lone problem of a single disgruntled poster. ___ 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
[ANN] Automated Check for Updates (was: Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?))
Hi all, Le 9 juin 07 à 08:56, Chipp Walters a écrit : I vote against this...(Can I add negative votes?). This functionality can easily be had via a plugin someone can write in 10 minutes. I think you'll create more problems (firewall issues, proxy servers, socket timeouts, etc..) than the lone problem of a single disgruntled poster. I took you at your word, Chipp :-) I have to confess that I needed twenty minutes, i.e. twice more than you allowed ;-) This invisible tiny plugin is on RevOnline now: User: So Smart Software Title: Auto Check for Updates Description: Just drop this invisible plugin into your plugin folder to force check for updates every time you launch Revolution Media, Studio or Enterprise. IMPORTANT: when downloading from RevOnline, lock the Messages padlock first in Rev toolbar to prevent the stack from auto-closing and save it :-) Best regards from Paris, Eric Chatonet. Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ___ 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: [ANN] Automated Check for Updates (was: Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?))
Hi again, For those who might prefer it, this tiny plugin is now available on my website too: More time to update the website than to write the plugin... Le 9 juin 07 à 11:27, Eric Chatonet a écrit : Hi all, Le 9 juin 07 à 08:56, Chipp Walters a écrit : I vote against this...(Can I add negative votes?). This functionality can easily be had via a plugin someone can write in 10 minutes. I think you'll create more problems (firewall issues, proxy servers, socket timeouts, etc..) than the lone problem of a single disgruntled poster. I took you at your word, Chipp :-) I have to confess that I needed twenty minutes, i.e. twice more than you allowed ;-) This invisible tiny plugin is on RevOnline now: User: So Smart Software Title: Auto Check for Updates Description: Just drop this invisible plugin into your plugin folder to force check for updates every time you launch Revolution Media, Studio or Enterprise. IMPORTANT: when downloading from RevOnline, lock the Messages padlock first in Rev toolbar to prevent the stack from auto-closing and save it :-) Best regards from Paris, Eric Chatonet. Plugins and tutorials for Revolution: http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp Walters wrote: On 6/8/07, Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com wrote: Request submitted for your voting pleasue: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=5134 My comments applied to the enhancement request: I vote against this...(Can I add negative votes?). This functionality can easily be had via a plugin someone can write in 10 minutes. I think you'll create more problems (firewall issues, proxy servers, socket timeouts, etc..) than the lone problem of a single disgruntled poster. While I agree that the complexities of RunRev's process makes it easier for a third-party to do this for them than for them to do it themselves, I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to be done. The Internet connection part of the equation is already in place, and no changes are proposed for that. The only thing proposed was that the program trigger that check once after startup. While a large and growing number of programs have some sort of Check for Updates menu item, I can think of very few of those which don't also provide a Preferences item for having this conveniently checked automatically. If there is a problem with the specifics you mentioned (firewalls, proxies, timeouts, etc.), those are not related to this proposed minor feature, but are part of the existing Check for Updates feature. If you've experienced problems running that you might consider submitting a BZ report outlining those so they can be addressed. Personally, I don't think Eric wasted his time at all. On the contrary, I'm very glad to see he's wrapped up that big project that's kept him so busy so he can resume his customary near-real-time plugin development. :) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/9/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Internet connection part of the equation is already in place, and no changes are proposed for that. The only thing proposed was that the program trigger that check once after startup. If there is a problem with the specifics you mentioned (firewalls, proxies, timeouts, etc.), those are not related to this proposed minor feature, but are part of the existing Check for Updates feature. If you've experienced problems running that you might consider submitting a BZ report outlining those so they can be addressed. Richard, You of course are correct. But, the problem with automatic check for updates, is that it CAN create problems when the user least expects it. When explicitly chosing a menuitem Check for Updates, a user understands the context of what is about to happen (or not happen). Launching Rev and have it hang for a series of moments, or provide a message after a 30 second timeout, IMO, only creates more opportunity for user dissatisfaction, more support tickets, etc.. My advice was to only to KISS. In fact, KISS is/was the mantra behind MC, right? I suppose I would accept a feature like the one you propose if a suitable interface could be created and the feature turned off by default. The suitable interface, IMO, would not be a silent try/failure/succeed, but rather a window popping up and telling the user what is about to happen, then going off and looking for updates and reporting back. Come to think of it, why not just put in IN RevOnline? best, Chipp ___ 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: [ANN] Automated Check for Updates (was: Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?))
Hah! Good one Eric. Now we really can delete the enhancement request. Hmmm. took you 20 minutes? I think you are slowing down in your old age, mon ami! ___ 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: [ANN] Automated Check for Updates (was: Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?))
Chipp- Saturday, June 9, 2007, 9:21:05 AM, you wrote: Hmmm. took you 20 minutes? I think you are slowing down in your old age, mon ami! I'm sure that was 20 minutes while he was sleeping. It would only have been ten minutes of real time. -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp wrote: My comments applied to the enhancement request: I vote against this...(Can I add negative votes?). This functionality can easily be had via a plugin someone can write in 10 minutes. I think you'll create more problems (firewall issues, proxy servers, socket timeouts, etc..) than the lone problem of a single disgruntled poster. --- Hi Chipp, The aim of my suggestion was to find some means of making bugfixes available to the user at the point when they are ready rather than making him wait for the next version release. The sort of thing I am suggesting is not a novelty, by any means. For example, about 30% of the time when I open up my Photoshop in Windows, the software is automatically updated (patched) in this way. But you seem to accept this idea, which is the essence of my suggestion. But I am a bit confused as to the meaning of the existing check for updates facility. I always took it to mean check to see if there is an entirely new version of the IDE available. Was this introduced originally with the idea of offering updates in the form of patches too? Or are patches actually available, but as a Studio license holder I am unlikely to have access to them? Can you clarify? As for whether or not there exists a little dancing icon to automatically inform the user of available patches or new versions, to me this would be a nice touch, but is far from essential. Others do it with no apparent trouble. I really wouldn't mind if it were introduced via plugin or any other viable means of providing the notification. 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
Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp Walters wrote: On 6/9/07, Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com wrote: If there is a problem with the specifics you mentioned (firewalls, proxies, timeouts, etc.), those are not related to this proposed minor feature, but are part of the existing Check for Updates feature. If you've experienced problems running that you might consider submitting a BZ report outlining those so they can be addressed. You of course are correct. But, the problem with automatic check for updates, is that it CAN create problems when the user least expects it. When explicitly chosing a menuitem Check for Updates, a user understands the context of what is about to happen (or not happen). Launching Rev and have it hang for a series of moments, or provide a message after a 30 second timeout, IMO, only creates more opportunity for user dissatisfaction, more support tickets, etc.. How often is this a problem for the many other programs that already have this feature? OS X, most/all of Adobe's, hundreds of smaller products, Microsoft Windows My advice was to only to KISS. In fact, KISS is/was the mantra behind MC, right? Absolutely, but the question here is whether asking users to go to a web site to check for updates, download it if there is one, and install it (which the MC IDE requires now) is simpler than at least letting the user know an update is available and providing an option to download it automatically. I suppose I would accept a feature like the one you propose if a suitable interface could be created and the feature turned off by default. I agree it should be optional, as most programs that support it do. I'm on the fence about whether the default should have it off. I'm inclined to agree that would be the better option, but I'd have to hear the arguments from the many vendors who've chosen otherwise to feel confident about it. Since the feature doesn't exist at all, I see no harm in a first-pass implementation that added it with the default being off. The suitable interface, IMO, would not be a silent try/failure/succeed, but rather a window popping up and telling the user what is about to happen, then going off and looking for updates and reporting back. I believe that's how most vendors handle it. Come to think of it, why not just put in IN RevOnline? Isn't RevOnline turned on by default? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On Jun 9, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: If there is a problem with the specifics you mentioned (firewalls, proxies, timeouts, etc.), those are not related to this proposed minor feature, but are part of the existing Check for Updates feature. If you've experienced problems running that you might consider submitting a BZ report outlining those so they can be addressed. Reading this reminded me that I needed to file an enhancement request for PAC files and the WPAD protocol. Revolution apps that access the internet do not work in corporate networks that use Proxy Auto- Configuration files (PAC) files since the developer does not know what ip address to set the httpproxy property to. Along with PAC support Revolution should also support the Web Proxy Auto-Discovery (WPAD) protocol which automatically detects the location of PAC files on the network. I've filed an enhancement request: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=5138 -- Trevor DeVore Blue Mango Learning Systems www.bluemangolearning.com-www.screensteps.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Bob, Updating Rev each time a bug fix is made, could be a dicey proposition, as typcially after a bug is fixed, there still should be unit testing, then more inside testing, then beta testing, then rc testing, etc. to make sure fixing the bug didn't break other stuff. I think Rev has taken the position to do all this in the same cycle, which for a company with limited resources, is a good way (IMO) to go. The existing architecture of course could do just as you suggest. But my biggest fear with a system like this would be we would never end up with a fairly stable release. The complexity of Rev could create unforseen problems when fixing one bug only to see a ripple effect of it creating many more. Richard, As I think you know, I use our own MagicCarpet updater (both automatic and manual), for all of our projects. I suppose I've got around 30-40 applications serviced by MagicCarpet in this way. My experience tells me for those programs which do not need internet access, it is better to go the manual update way, for the reasons I've already given-- mainly much less support hassle when individuals are in situations where they have no internet connection. best, Chipp ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
As I said, it would be far better to fall short of the ideal in relation to the Future Glimpse model of RR releases and bugfixing than not to have a clear model at all, as it seems to be at the moment. I shall therefore briefly define what my idea of the ideal is, and then guess at what I imagine is possible at the moment. IDEAL --No changes (or perhaps reductions) in prices --Feature releases for the major platforms every 6 months --Between feature releases, for every individual bug, fix/test/release VIABLE NOW? --A slight rise in prices? --Feature releases for the major platforms every 9 months (strictly)? --Between feature releases, the simultaneous fixing/testing/release of the lowest numbers of bugs in blocks possible. The number of bugs in a block depends on the bugs. Some appear to be simple little things, but they take ages to solve. Others appear to be highly complex, but are solved in a jiffy. Arranging them in blocks is an art. Obviously, for a 9-month feature development cycle, there would need to be a strictly-defined cutoff point so that adequate public beta testing could begin (say at 6 months?). Under such a plan, I might be able to arrange my own programming life adequately for the first time. The real reason behind all of this is the fact that I am fascinated by the vision of a dancing Rev Online icon at the top of my IDE window to tell me that bug-fix downloads are available! :-D Bob P.S. To what degree is patching of the Rev IDE possible or practical? ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
From: Bob Warren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Obviously, for a 9-month feature development cycle, there would need to be a strictly-defined cutoff point so that adequate public beta testing could begin (say at 6 months?). I have to agree with you here that a longer version cycle with bug fixes released at shorter intervals would be to my mind preferable. However I suspect there may be some important (to RR) financial reasons for following the cycle they currently use. That in itself may well make their current method desirable to us though we may not realize it Scott ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Downloaded - and wow - thats a blast from the past - pretty cute :) On 08/06/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you -- or any of the other open source advocates here -- would be interested in exploring new ground in an open source IDE which runs under the Rev engine, here's the URL to MetaCard's home where you can find links to the latest build and to the discussion list we use for coordinating our work: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MC_IDE/ ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Let me make the suggestion more explicit in the hope that either its merits will be discussed, or it will be torn to pieces: 1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them. 2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting right what he has done wrong. Feature releases are not for the purpose of fixing bugs. In fact, they will unintentionally introduce them. But there is no such thing as a bug-fix release. Bug fixes are handled between feature releases, and here's how: What this requires is that the development and public releases are branched in the sense of CVS. That is the missing ingredient for Rev which blocks separating bugfix releases from development of next version. Robert ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 08/06/07, Robert Brenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What this requires is that the development and public releases are branched in the sense of CVS. That is the missing ingredient for Rev which blocks separating bugfix releases from development of next version. And a no-brainer for them. If they want - I'd happily set up subversion, documentation and integrate their existing bugzilla stuff - just for the love. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Trevor DeVore wrote: Right. Defining our own syntax would give us that. We would want an improved externals interface of course). I would love to have english like syntax wrapped around the QT external or a database library. Hopefully someday. Spinnaker Plus (later marketed as WinPlus) was an xTalk that had externals—what they called software slot objects,—which did allow you to parse the script from the point at which the external command or function was called. In your C code, you simply asked for the next token(s) and interpreted or evaluated the values. Simple and elegant. I look forward to the equivalent in Rev someday. t -- Tereza Snyder Califex Software, Inc. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Bob Warren wrote: The real reason behind all of this is the fact that I am fascinated by the vision of a dancing Rev Online icon at the top of my IDE window to tell me that bug-fix downloads are available! :-D So if RunRev added an Automatically Check for Updates feature to compliment the the existing Check for Updates menu item, these sorts of threads would go away? :) P.S. To what degree is patching of the Rev IDE possible or practical? AFAIK only three stacks in the Rev IDE are locked: the Standalone Builder, License.rev, and RevOnline. All others are open for your modification, with the caveat that your changes will be lost with the next update. If RunRev would consider open sourcing the IDE as MetaCard's is, you would be able to contribute changes for them to consider including in the master build. But even without a formal open source process, Kevin has said that if someone makes a patcher for the IDE which applies any such changes, they could easily run it to evaluate them and would consider including them. -- 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/8/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Warren wrote: The real reason behind all of this is the fact that I am fascinated by the vision of a dancing Rev Online icon at the top of my IDE window to tell me that bug-fix downloads are available! :-D Bob, you know you don't need OSS for that. Just request from Rev the specification about how the 'check updates' function talks with their server and write yourself a plugin that checks that on startup. andre ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
I second that. As a RunRev user but also someone who does large projects in PHP/MySQL (both open source tools, in spite of MySQL's wonky licensing), this definitely rings true. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution for RunRev, but here is one facet which I find interesting which *maybe* they could emulate. Many of the most popular open source tools out there have two major branches supported. For example, I have my choice of: Apache --- version 1.3.37 (still runs great, runs more sites than 2.0) version 2.0.59 (legacy version of the new 2.0+ architecture) version 2.2.4 (the latest and greatest, but still fairly stable) PHP --- version 4.4.7 (until recently, the latest and greatest) version 5.2.3 (the latest and greatest) MySQL --- version 4.1 (what most people are using) version 5.0 (the latest stable version) version 5.1 (beta) version 6.0 (alpha) Generally speaking, the latest and greatest of each of these has significantly fewer users than the previous major version. Granted, server technologies have different requirements from GUI apps running on the newest consumer machines. I wouldn't mind seeing Rev follow a similar path. What if, for example, you had the *paid* option to move from 2.9 to 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.3, 2.9.4 and so on instead of jumping to 3.0? I'm guessing many users here would pay for the option to stay with the version they have if they knew it would be supported, bug fixed, and kept compatible with OS updates. Yes it might cannibalize some upgrades, but it would also create revenue from people who might never upgrade to the next version, especially if they see the current one breaking. Look at Apache. 1.3.37. That's 37 bug fix releases! How many people here would rather spend their money on Revolution 2.9.37 than an upgrade to 3.0.0? I'm betting a significant chunk of this list. Some people would buy both. New customers could choose. Rock solid version, or cutting edge? Anyway, I know this is all easier said than done - but I think it's worth noting that there actually is potential revenue in it for RunRev. Maybe even enough to hire a developer to just keep those old releases shiny and keep fixing bugs... On 6/6/07, Samuel M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that with a paid model the incentive is for the developer to release feature updates that sound good to justify paying upgrade fees but that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as maintaining stable quality code. Mature open source on the other hand has the opposite incentive, stable code and only add features that people are willing to invest time in to get so you get a different evolution of features over time. Brilliant. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Hello. Another option could be having a gap between the Latest and Greatest version of Revolution and an older version opened under open source say, for instance, 2.5. As upgrades are made to the cutting edge version (Which you would pay for), older versions would be open sourced as well. That way, there would be the Open Source community supporting legacy Revolution and Runrev supporting the cutting edge development of Revolution as we know it. Thanks, Brent Anderson http://www.spacecamputah.org http://www.fieryferret.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: WAR ON BUGS [WAS Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev, would do this?)]
Stephen Barncard wrote: At 4:12 PM -0300 6/7/07, Bob Warren wrote: 1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them. And we'll be getting them. It's in the roadmap, and Kevin is sticking to it. 2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting right what he has done wrong. We didn't pay for bug fixes. Runrev extended their free upgrade policy to customers for over a year while the WOB was going on. The other day, I put forward a model under the thread A glimpse of the future which was totally ignored. I must therefore presume that in the opinion of all I don't think we're ignoring you, we're just exhausted from the negative. I feel Rev has emerged from a dark buggy period into the light. We've had a few 'Rev outa do this' emails lately where the poster seemed to go on and on and complain that Rev isn't doing enough to please him, and he takes the stand of 'demanding customer'. Arguments about 'bug free is impossible' vs 'it must be bug free, screw the new features' ensues. These threads go on for weeks, then die down, then another person (who didn't read the ones before) takes over. (I won't name names...) I will mention Bill Marriot was once a big complainer (with good reason)... but the difference is that he joined the Rev team, started a 'War On Bugs!' and made a difference. I'm glad Rev exists, and if a few bumps along the road are there, I won't complain as long as I know there's work being done on my wishes. They are not Microsoft and cannot deliver the manpower in the same way. Actually they have enlisted many of us in their efforts to improve the product, and I think that's far better than Microsoft. How can you help? When you see a bug, take the time to describe it enough to repeat it, or make a movie, or demo stack and send all of it to Quality Control. It will get fixed. I've seen it happen in days. - Thanks for that, Stephen. First of all, I think that Rev have been doing rather well lately, that's why I feel inspired enough to put forward some suggestions for further improvement. Do you think I should stop? How does one point out limitations in the current practice of the system without being negative as you suggest? When you mentioned the roadmap I was taken aback. What roadmap? Enterprise license holders and those who have the money to travel to conferences are undoubtedly more in the know because they are paying for it, but ordinary Studio license holders such as myself have little idea of what Rev plans to do. It is therefore very difficult for us to arrange our programming lives. I didn't say we paid for bugfixes. I really don't know what we actually pay for, either directly or indirectly. It's not clear to me. What I did suggest is that upgrades should be (well) paid for and that they should not be for the purpose of bugfixing. Bugfixing should be done constantly in between releases. Certainly, this would make the situation a bit clearer. As for the rest of your post, the only thing I will say is that I feel there is no need to put me into the category of the various stereotypes you mention, since they are all negative and you are obviously bugged about something. I am not one of your bugs, so please try and trust my intentions a little more. Let me just ask you a few questions. In relation to current practices as they are seen by ordinary users: 1. Is there a need for regular Rev updates or not? 2. To know that a bug has been fixed doesn't help if the fix cannot be implemented within a reasonable time. Is turnaround in this sense anywhere near adequate at the moment? If you tell me that such wonderful things are already in the pipeline, then I am very pleased. But Rev didn't tell me. 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
Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Richard Gaskin wrote: But even without a formal open source process, Kevin has said that if someone makes a patcher for the IDE which applies any such changes, they could easily run it to evaluate them and would consider including them. - Thanks very much, Richard. That sounds very positive and encouraging to me. 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
Re: WAR ON BUGS [WAS Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev, would do this?)]
Bob Warren wrote: When you mentioned the roadmap I was taken aback. What roadmap? Enterprise license holders and those who have the money to travel to conferences are undoubtedly more in the know because they are paying for it, but ordinary Studio license holders such as myself have little idea of what Rev plans to do. Right. Enterprise users are under NDA and so they get more info. It's one of the perks. Conference attendees also sign an NDA. I guess the best that Studio and Media users can do is trust others when they say that things are going along according to plan. 1. Is there a need for regular Rev updates or not? Sure there is. Runtime generally releases 4 to 6 updates per year, which is quite a lot for a multi-OS-compatible program. That's one every two to three months. 2. To know that a bug has been fixed doesn't help if the fix cannot be implemented within a reasonable time. Is turnaround in this sense anywhere near adequate at the moment? You can tell which bugs have been fixed by searching the Quality Control center, using the advanced search option to look for bugs that have been fixed since a particular date. Those fixes will be in the next release, which will generally be within 3 months or so of the last one. If you tell me that such wonderful things are already in the pipeline, then I am very pleased. But Rev didn't tell me. Nor should they. Few companies release details on upcoming release timelines or what's included in them until the release is actually out. Can you tell me when the next update of Photoshop is due out and what will be in it? -- 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Bob Warren wrote: The real reason behind all of this is the fact that I am fascinated by the vision of a dancing Rev Online icon at the top of my IDE window to tell me that bug-fix downloads are available! :-D Richard Gaskin wrote: So if RunRev added an Automatically Check for Updates feature to compliment the the existing Check for Updates menu item, these sorts of threads would go away? :) - They would, they would! Especially if after clicking on the icon we were told: Hello! Runtime Revolution here. We have some crucial update patches for your IDE. Do you want to download them? I've just clicked on the existing Check for Updates menu item on OSX and this is what it said: There are currently no updates available, please check again soon. By the way, what does soon mean? Is it like the coming soon for the Rev/Linux update which so far at the Rev site has said 2.7 coming soon, 2.8 coming soon, '2.9 coming soon, ..? Every time I try to grab it, it shifts! :-P 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
Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Bob Warren wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: So if RunRev added an Automatically Check for Updates feature to compliment the the existing Check for Updates menu item, these sorts of threads would go away? :) They would, they would! Request submitted for your voting pleasue: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=5134 -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 7 Jun 2007, at 4:59, Brian Yennie wrote: Snip. I wouldn't mind seeing Rev follow a similar path. What if, for example, you had the *paid* option to move from 2.9 to 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.3, 2.9.4 and so on instead of jumping to 3.0? I'm guessing many users here would pay for the option to stay with the version they have if they knew it would be supported, bug fixed, and kept compatible with OS updates. Yes it might cannibalize some upgrades, but it would also create revenue from people who might never upgrade to the next version, especially if they see the current one breaking. No thanks! Cheers, Luis. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Richard Gaskin wrote: So if RunRev added an Automatically Check for Updates feature to compliment the the existing Check for Updates menu item, these sorts of threads would go away? :) Bob Warren wrote: They would, they would! Richard Gaskin wrote: Request submitted for your voting pleasue: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=5134 --- Uba! Uba! So I might get my little dancing icon? I can now sleep soundly at night with that little icon in my mind's eye? Seriously, much obliged Richard. You ain't such a bad bloke (for Americans and others, that's typical English understatement) :-) ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Like I said, GPL is not the only choice. Cheers, Luis. On 7 Jun 2007, at 04:18, Chipp Walters wrote: On 6/6/07, Luis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does not mean that whatever changes are made are forced upon you, as for that same reason, you can change it. GPL has given us Linux, Firefox, etc. OOPS, not so fast...have you seen the stir GPL 3 is causing? Turns out if you plan on using GPL 3 code in a commercial product, there will be several pending restrictions-- which your customer/client may find not only objectable, but in TiVo's case, completely destructive. And I quote: *(The GPL 3) no longer works in the fairness sense. It's purely a firebrand, and only good for the extremist policies of the FSF. It's no longer a nice balance that a lot of people can accept, and that a lot of companies can stand behind once you explain it to them.* --Linus Torvalds, Linux founder See Torvalds critical of new GPL draft http://news.com.com/Torvalds+critical+of+new+GPL+draft/ 2100-7344_3-6099475.html?tag=item ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
It puts the user directly in contact with the development process. In terms of open source software the user is (or has been) the developer - so you you get stability, quick bug fixes and security (if you are dealing with paranoid sys admins), or chaos, multiple forks and experiments (if you are dealing with younger hackers). Thats how it cuts out the cause of feature bloat by getting the marketing people out of the loop. Thats why the packaging, GUI and ease of use tend to suffer. What seems to be happening now (as Richard pointed out) is that the design and usability people are getting in on the act. This could not happen until the infrastructure was there now for open source style GUI work. MVC style design patterns allow the geeks to adore each other, and the wannabe designers to show their stuff without messing with the functional code. Thats not just CSS and skins, but also businesses providing web services such as mapping. I'd beg to differ with Lynn that this stuff is only for the big boys - like Adobe, IBM, Google or Yahoo. The developers of Base Camp have a good business, they build upon the developer community they created with Ruby on Rails. They get a lot of work. Nor did they need to raise heaps of cash to get there. If I had a vote - I'd at least be seriously exploring moving over to that sort of model - together with dual licensing for companies wanting closed source solutions for their customers. Business models are adapting to these new forces, and while they are not sorted out yet - where there is dirt there is money. On 07/06/07, Chipp Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/6/07, Samuel M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that with a paid model the incentive is for the developer to release feature updates that sound good to justify paying upgrade fees but that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as maintaining stable quality code. Mature open source on the other hand has the opposite incentive, stable code and only add features that people are willing to invest time in to get so you get a different evolution of features over time. Brilliant. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Oh no, we agree on something... Cheers, Luis. On 7 Jun 2007, at 04:25, Chipp Walters wrote: On 6/6/07, Samuel M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that with a paid model the incentive is for the developer to release feature updates that sound good to justify paying upgrade fees but that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as maintaining stable quality code. Mature open source on the other hand has the opposite incentive, stable code and only add features that people are willing to invest time in to get so you get a different evolution of features over time. Brilliant. ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
And if you are looking at restrictions on freedom - equally scary is future where hardware will not run software that is not copyright approved by a built in DRM chipp - pun intended :) Now if you were a company with a large library of software or digital content - that would be something worth lobbying for - which of course they are. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
David, I think you may have answered the How do we pay the piper? question here: I'd beg to differ with Lynn that this stuff is only for the big boys - like Adobe, IBM, Google or Yahoo. The developers of Base Camp have a good business, they build upon the developer community they created with Ruby on Rails. They get a lot of work. Nor did they need to raise heaps of cash to get there. If I had a vote - I'd at least be seriously exploring moving over to that sort of model - together with dual licensing for companies wanting closed source solutions for their customers. Business models are adapting to these new forces, and while they are not sorted out yet - where there is dirt there is money. The folks at Base Camp have visibility, but do revenues match? It isn't hard for any services company to be booked to capacity, but the challenge with services is that revenue is capped by the number of hours in a day. The relative ROI for software products is much higher, with no human resources constraint on revenue. But your note reminds me of one overwhelming success: MySQL. I have to admit that it would have been inconceivable for a small organization like MySQL to get a larger installed base than Sybase and Oracle without their dual licensing. A very carefully chosen license (hopefully more clearly communicated than MySQL's) might well be the ticket for Rev. Enforcement is a difficult thing with dual licensing, and I'm not sure how one would go about it when the source is freely available without relying primarily on litigation. Litigation is perhaps the most costly form of license enforcement. :) Some open source projects only make the source available if you apply for it, which may be optimal since it introduces an accountability otherwise absent when sources are freely downloadable. But you may be onto something here. A dual license explodes the market for services, while protecting revenue with the market segment that's most profitable anyway, the commercial developer. With development tools like Rev support costs are disproportionately higher than with simpler consumer apps, and costs to support professionals tends to be much lower than for less experienced developers. This means that under the current model Media customers are the most expensive sale with the lowest ROI, making the segment worth addressing solely on the hope of numbers large enough to offset the costs. But under a dual license, those looking for free stuff simply don't get support from the company, and those who need support would pay for it directly. Low-end customers looking for support would turn to things like this list, where consultants are motivated to provide support for free for the visibility. So a dual license might well preserve the highest-ROI customers while trimming the lowest-ROI, all the while exploding market share beyond what even a million-dollar marketing budget could hope to accomplish for a purely proprietary product. H. Thanks for posting that, David. Much to think about -- 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 07/06/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I think you may have answered the How do we pay the piper? question here: I think it's along the right lines - I think there are opportunities regarding the Linux version etc. The folks at Base Camp have visibility, but do revenues match? Your guess is as good as mine. The real question is are 37Signals making more money than RunRev? Which company is in a better position with regard to future profits and investors? It's hard to quantify but my guess would be that RunRevs software is an order of magnitude more complex than Ruby on Rails, that there startup investment was lower, and their valuation an order of magnitude higher. I can not really see why RunRev could not have done this with the code base they own. Indeed it would be relatively easy to produce a Rails like web environment in Rev - plus some. Rails was never easy to install and there needed to be and now is an explosion of hosting companies setting up services - the same could have happened with Rev CGI I am not suggesting a pure Rails copy - but something that makes more use of Rev features. From my experience of the open source market - there would have been a very significant number of very talented coders that would have killed to have a go at the C++ code - if it were open - though I'd guess that there are commercial libraries used that would make this a little tricky. A very carefully chosen license (hopefully more clearly communicated than MySQL's) might well be the ticket for Rev. There is scope for creativity here - indeed you could even think of a new type of license if needed. Or simply start a process in which the core language - lets say for the CGI engine (plus) is open sourced, and there is a subscription based process where you get the latest commercial extensions, IDE, dual license and support for the current license fee. Over time there could be a two way flow, with older commercial features becoming part of the open source engine, and the best of some of the open source side being improved on and offered in the commercial package under a closed license. Enforcement is a difficult thing with dual licensing, and I'm not sure how one would go about it when the source is freely available without relying primarily on litigation. Litigation is perhaps the most costly form of license enforcement. :) Is it? I have no hard evidence on this - but my guess would be that there is significantly less fraudulent use of dual licensed software than there is of closed source applications (which is very very common). I also doubt that MySQL have had need to incur higher legal costs than any other comparable closed source database company. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
I'd beg to differ with Lynn that this stuff is only for the big boys - like Adobe, IBM, Google or Yahoo. The developers of Base Camp have a good business, they build upon the developer community they created with Ruby on Rails. They get a lot of work. Nor did they need to raise heaps of cash to get there. If I had a vote - I'd at least be seriously exploring moving over to that sort of model - together with dual licensing for companies wanting closed source solutions for their customers. Dave, this mispresents my point. These companies have achieved dominance in very highly profitable market segments. That is one major, characteristic difference. The devil is in the details. I don't know the inside story of 37 Signals, just what is available in the press. There are some winning moves they have made that have given them some prosperity in recent years - there are some similarities I can see between 37 Signals and Runtime, but a whole lot of differences too. That doesn't mean those moves are going to be equally successful for any other company. There is a lot to like in Open Source software (speaking of which - are you going to OSCON? I am! :-)) and there is a lot I like about it. But Id like to draw a funny comparision between Open Source and a phenomenon in business from the late 70's - 90's when the west started to become obsessed with business success of Japanese corporations. A number of western company strategists came up with the notion that if they emulated the superficial, observed behaviors of these companies and their employees that somehow they would achive greater productivity. Those few who *really* dug into various methodologies gleaned some benefit, like Just in Time manufacturing and Kaizen quality perspectives (or had to come up with competing strategies). Those who dug in further may have realized what absolutely is not transferable because of the connection between these methods, Japanese culture, and the international business climate of the time. But what struck me as hilarious were those companies that thought having an entire team soak in a onsen together and drink sake or have morning company workouts at your desk will somehow achieve some sort of gain. Now fast forward to 2007. Japan is achiving some economic rebound, but the machine that seemed unstoppable in the late '80s and early '90s is a shadow of its former self. I am very interested in open source. But the problem Ive had to date is that, there are a great number of companies stuck at that soaking in the onsen phase - most explanations of why open source is good have been superficial and unconvincing when it comes to general business practice, though Ive seen some specific, isolated instances where its made great sense. It isnt obvious that what's good for Adobe is good for Runtime, any more than soaking in an onsen will suddenly make me more competive with the Japanese. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks Worldwide Business Operations Runtime Revolution Ltd http://www.runrev.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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Richard Gaskin wrote: A lot of folks here used to cry out for free bug-fix upgrades, but last time Rev delivered one they complained it didn't address all of them and left out too many feature requests. ;) - The other day, I put forward a model under the thread A glimpse of the future which was totally ignored. I must therefore presume that in the opinion of all UR-List contributers, the suggestion is flawed. Except that nobody had the patience to tell me why it was flawed. Let me make the suggestion more explicit in the hope that either its merits will be discussed, or it will be torn to pieces: 1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them. 2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting right what he has done wrong. Feature releases are not for the purpose of fixing bugs. In fact, they will unintentionally introduce them. But there is no such thing as a bug-fix release. Bug fixes are handled between feature releases, and here's how: RR take reported bugs one by one and fix them. After fixing a single bug, they test the shit out of the IDE in order to discover the unexpected consequences. Once they are satisfied, the bugfix is immediately made available to users, either in the form of a patch, or in the form of an entirely new IDE for download. When a single bugfix is available, the Rev Online icon at the top of the user's IDE window dances up and down. It tells the user that a bugfix is available for direct download in a way which is exactly parallel to the way it is done for whole operating systems such as Ubuntu or OSX. Too simple? Too naive? Economically unviable? You don't like the word single? PLEASE TELL ME. 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
Re: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
First of all, Bob, We appreciate your efforts, but what you suggest just won't ever happen. Even if we expand the word single to be several hundred, the number of builds necessitated by that approach would be enormous, and we'd all be driven absolutely out of our minds. Right now, it's bad enough. I do agree that we should pay for features and not bug fixes, but sometimes the difference between the two is pretty vague; and, hopefully, that's what we ARE doing. But it is just more convenient for all of us to get a single new package, rather than a number of different ones of whose status we have to keep track. My feeling is: Keep dreaming! Joe Wilkins On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Bob Warren wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: A lot of folks here used to cry out for free bug-fix upgrades, but last time Rev delivered one they complained it didn't address all of them and left out too many feature requests. ;) - The other day, I put forward a model under the thread A glimpse of the future which was totally ignored. I must therefore presume that in the opinion of all UR-List contributers, the suggestion is flawed. Except that nobody had the patience to tell me why it was flawed. Let me make the suggestion more explicit in the hope that either its merits will be discussed, or it will be torn to pieces: 1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them. 2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting right what he has done wrong. Feature releases are not for the purpose of fixing bugs. In fact, they will unintentionally introduce them. But there is no such thing as a bug-fix release. Bug fixes are handled between feature releases, and here's how: RR take reported bugs one by one and fix them. After fixing a single bug, they test the shit out of the IDE in order to discover the unexpected consequences. Once they are satisfied, the bugfix is immediately made available to users, either in the form of a patch, or in the form of an entirely new IDE for download. When a single bugfix is available, the Rev Online icon at the top of the user's IDE window dances up and down. It tells the user that a bugfix is available for direct download in a way which is exactly parallel to the way it is done for whole operating systems such as Ubuntu or OSX. Too simple? Too naive? Economically unviable? You don't like the word single? PLEASE TELL ME. 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 07/06/07, Lynn Fredricks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see between 37 Signals and Runtime, but a whole lot of differences too. That doesn't mean those moves are going to be equally successful for any other company. Agreed - it doesn't. The devil is in the detail. In an email I can only use examples / metaphors to make a point. The point is that small companies, can make it big by opening up the language or tool environment that is their core business. Its easy to say that RunRev is not Adobe, but I would be interested in your thinking as to why RunRev could not make as good a business out of open sourcing core parts of the C++ engine in a similar way to 37Signals or MySQL in its early days. There is a lot to like in Open Source software (speaking of which - are you going to OSCON? I am! :-)) I wish - but I don't even know where Oregon is :) It isnt obvious that what's good for Adobe is good for Runtime, any more than soaking in an onsen will suddenly make me more competive with the Japanese. I think we agree that a direct comparison with Adobe is not going to get us very far? And I'm sure the Japanese and the Germans will be back - on the general point open source is hardly a fad - for fads I'd look at AJAX / Web 2 etc in fact it is old and slowly and steadily growing. Business models move slowly, its hardly revolutionary to suggest that to incorporate some of the better elements of open source within a tool development business is sensible. For a Revolution you'd be looking at something bolder. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
A little hard Joe? On 07/06/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all, Bob, We appreciate your efforts, but what you suggest just won't ever happen But it is just more convenient for all of us to get a single new package, rather than a number of different ones of whose status we have to keep track. I for one really appreciate both the regularity of MacOX system / security updates, and those of FireFox. They are painless and a lot more regular than Revs updates. Scott and MetaCard had a similar strategy before RunRev started a more old-school approach - it worked for me - if I emailed in a bug - it would get fixed within weeks or a few months at most. Most of all since we have had everything in place for online stack / plugin updates - there really should be a supported way for IDE bugfixes and enhancements to get spotted,fixed and distributed much faster. Surely there is little doubt that OSX engineers are some of the best engineers out there - and they took a leaf out of the open source book (indeed many of them come from Mozilla, Gentoo and other open source projects). RunRev could do worse than learning the same lessons. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
In my limited industrial experience, it is far better to fall short of an ideal future model that you slowly edging towards than it is to work in a mess. 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
Re: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Chipp- OOPS, not so fast...have you seen the stir GPL 3 is causing? Luckily, GPL3 is still just a draft at this point. There's hope that the FSF folks will still come to their senses, or that folks will just avoid GPL3 and go with Creative Commons licensing instead. http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter.php http://creativecommons.org/ -- Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:49 PM, David Bovill wrote: Its easy to say that RunRev is not Adobe, but I would be interested in your thinking as to why RunRev could not make as good a business out of open sourcing core parts of the C++ engine in a similar way to 37Signals or MySQL in its early days. Just to clarify, Ruby on Rails (I assume that is what you are referring to when you mention 37Signals) is a framework built for an already existing development language. Someone could make an open source web application framework in Revolution and would be doing the same thing as 37Signals in this regard, though the underlying language would not be open source. Revolution could even be the folks to do that if they wanted. It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that this would be similar to the Adobe solution. Adobe did not open source Flex Builder, Flex Data Services or Flash itself - just the Flex framework. At least that is what I've read in articles discussing the topic. But personally I don't think the Revolution language is mature enough yet to venture down this road. The language is not extensible so the beauty of the Revolution syntax breaks the moment you write functionality not included in the engine. I think the first step is an extensible language designed by a small group that does have to waste time doing design by committee. Make that available to everyone and then people can start building elegant open source frameworks that will catch on. -- Trevor DeVore Blue Mango Learning Systems www.bluemangolearning.com-www.screensteps.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 07/06/07, Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ttp://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter.php http://creativecommons.org/ I thought of using Creative Commons licenses for software a while back - some people do. But it is not recommended by the lawyers :) ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 07/06/07, Trevor DeVore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adobe did not open source Flex Builder, Flex Data Services or Flash itself - just the Flex framework. At least that is what I've read in articles discussing the topic. Not sure - but whats missing from this: Adobe plans to release all of the components of the Flex SDK needed to create Flex applications, including the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger, and the ActionScript libraries that make up the core Flex framework. Adobe Flex Builder, the Eclipse-based IDE, is not part of the open source announcement. Sounds pretty comprehensive to me? I think the first step is an extensible language designed by a small group that does have to waste time doing design by committee. Make that available to everyone and then people can start building elegant open source frameworks that will catch on. What are you thinking of here Trevor - sounds intriguing - but you lost me :) ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Trevor DeVore wrote: On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:49 PM, David Bovill wrote: Its easy to say that RunRev is not Adobe, but I would be interested in your thinking as to why RunRev could not make as good a business out of open sourcing core parts of the C++ engine in a similar way to 37Signals or MySQL in its early days. Just to clarify, Ruby on Rails (I assume that is what you are referring to when you mention 37Signals) is a framework built for an already existing development language. I believe Ruby itself is also open source, governed by the LGPL. Someone could make an open source web application framework in Revolution and would be doing the same thing as 37Signals in this regard, though the underlying language would not be open source. Agreed; Andre's done some great work toward that end. And since the engine remains free for CGI use, the differences for most folks are pretty minor. Revolution could even be the folks to do that if they wanted. It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that this would be similar to the Adobe solution. Adobe did not open source Flex Builder, Flex Data Services or Flash itself - just the Flex framework. At least that is what I've read in articles discussing the topic. But personally I don't think the Revolution language is mature enough yet to venture down this road. The language is not extensible so the beauty of the Revolution syntax breaks the moment you write functionality not included in the engine. On the one hand, we could ask whether we might get to that sort of seamless extensibility (SuperCard's Internals Toolbox had it in 1994) more quickly if we had multiple programmers working on it via an open source process. But then on the other hand I can't find two more volunteers to do some pretty lightweight scripting on the MC IDE, so maybe not. ;) -- 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On Jun 7, 2007, at 3:34 PM, David Bovill wrote: Not sure - but whats missing from this: Adobe plans to release all of the components of the Flex SDK needed to create Flex applications, including the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger, and the ActionScript libraries that make up the core Flex framework. Adobe Flex Builder, the Eclipse-based IDE, is not part of the open source announcement. Sounds pretty comprehensive to me? That is quite a bit of stuff but it is missing Flex Builder (the development environment), Flex Data Services or Flash. As I understand it (again, correct me if I'm wrong) the development environment, a key component (data services) and the primary output (Flash movies) of Flex are closed. Plus the Flash player isn't open either. What I'm getting at here is that key parts are still closed which is what a Rev solution would be like if there was a widely available open source web development framework. I think the first step is an extensible language designed by a small group that does have to waste time doing design by committee. Make that available to everyone and then people can start building elegant open source frameworks that will catch on. What are you thinking of here Trevor - sounds intriguing - but you lost me Currently Revolution is primarily a desktop application environment. The combination of the syntax, how easy it is to create GUI elements and the cross-platform capabilities is a major plus and what draw me towards it. What Revolution lacks is the capability to create your own objects or extend the language in any way. When you start using Revolution on the web the cross-platform nature of the engine and the GUI elements no longer play a role in deciding whether or not Revolution adds value. As a web development tool all that matter are: 1) Language 2) Available frameworks and libraries The GUI is handled by the web browser so interacting with the browser is what your framework and libraries do. Really the language is the primary factor since all frameworks and libraries are built using the language. In Revolution I can interact with lines in a string very elegantly: repeat for each line theLine in thString put item 1 of theLine into theID put item 2 of theLine into theTitle end repeat The problem with the Revolution language now is that I can't create my own xml object and interact with it like I might lines in a string of text: repeat for each node theNode in xml document myXMLDocument put the id attribute of theNode into theID put the title attribute of theNode into theTitle end repeat What this means is that a developer cannot create elegant language based solutions for interacting with XML and databases (two key elements of web development). I think for Revolution to be appealing to web developers the language needs to support the ability to build up custom objects and define our own syntax. The english-like syntax is the beauty of the language but it needs to be made extensible by the developer. Does this make sense? -- Trevor DeVore Blue Mango Learning Systems www.bluemangolearning.com-www.screensteps.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 08/06/07, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And since the engine remains free for CGI use, the differences for most folks are pretty minor. Beg to differ :) If the cgi engine had been open - several years back I would have a crack at creating an Apache module. I had quite some difficulties talking sys admins into installing Metacard or Rev engines - so apart from the speed improvements - there was the trust and security factors - no amount of Scott Raney talking to people to the sys admins direct really reassured them - they simply did not trust closed source wierd stuff from a security point of view. I'd think there would be a number of possible routes that people would take up if the CGI engine was open - there is the fastcgi / lightHTTP thing and some nice fast HTTP servers written in C that could be looked at for Web application serving. Right now - its not on the cards for me - but a few years back the developers I new would have put a few months into that - open source style only. But then on the other hand I can't find two more volunteers to do some pretty lightweight scripting on the MC IDE, so maybe not. ;) I'd love to - though as I'm exploring the dual license possibilities I'm not sure how to mix it in with GPL code - any ideas? ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Just to clarify, Ruby on Rails (I assume that is what you are referring to when you mention 37Signals) is a framework built for an already existing development language. I believe Ruby itself is also open source, governed by the LGPL. Yes it is. Someone could make an open source web application framework in Revolution and would be doing the same thing as 37Signals in this regard, though the underlying language would not be open source. Agreed; Andre's done some great work toward that end. Yes he has. And since the engine remains free for CGI use, the differences for most folks are pretty minor. In it's current state I don't believe Revolution can be a major contender in the web space. See my remarks to David concerning the language. Now, if we had a more extensible language then I believe you could combine the Revolution development environment with a Revolution web framework to create some incredible solutions. But personally I don't think the Revolution language is mature enough yet to venture down this road. The language is not extensible so the beauty of the Revolution syntax breaks the moment you write functionality not included in the engine. On the one hand, we could ask whether we might get to that sort of seamless extensibility (SuperCard's Internals Toolbox had it in 1994) more quickly if we had multiple programmers working on it via an open source process. But then on the other hand I can't find two more volunteers to do some pretty lightweight scripting on the MC IDE, so maybe not. ;) My feeling is that the core language has to be designed first and then you can start getting community involvement. I think that individuals or small groups are more efficient at designing something that communities can then take and build upon. Give us an extensible language and lots of things can happen. -- Trevor DeVore Blue Mango Learning Systems www.bluemangolearning.com-www.screensteps.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 08/06/07, Trevor DeVore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 7, 2007, at 3:34 PM, David Bovill wrote: Not sure - but whats missing from this: Adobe plans to release all of the components of the Flex SDK needed to create Flex applications, including the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger, and the ActionScript libraries that make up the core Flex framework. Adobe Flex Builder, the Eclipse-based IDE, is not part of the open source announcement. Sounds pretty comprehensive to me? That is quite a bit of stuff but it is missing Flex Builder (the development environment), Flex Builder is there and so are the compilers - I am not sure what the data services are... but in general I agree that they have carefully chosen to keep hold of some strategic parts of the picture while open sourcing enough to keep them in the good books of the community. I still don't quite get what is being held onto with the latest moves though. . Does this make sense? Yes it does and I totally agree. If the CGI engine were open you could look at that. RunRev could retain the copyright and dual licence it, and if they asked for the copyright on all the new submissions - then they could look to incorporate any bits that worked for them into the standalone engine. I remember Scott Raney saying that the engine was basically object oriented ages ago, and that he had to drop plans to take it further as there was no demand back then. One way of thinking about it is to have the ability to create language wrappers around otherwise obscure syntax of other langauges and frameworks? I've been trying to do that with web services by creating objects and referring to properties of the object. Having (global) objects that do not require GUI elements would help a lot and simplify the syntax too. Would there not be a path to do this which builds on Andres work and uses socket or pipes to existing frameworks in the short term - perhaps using the .NET DLR stuff to create a language parser in the longer term? ___ 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: WAR ON BUGS [WAS Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)]
At 4:12 PM -0300 6/7/07, Bob Warren wrote: 1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them. And we'll be getting them. It's in the roadmap, and Kevin is sticking to it. 2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting right what he has done wrong. We didn't pay for bug fixes. Runrev extended their free upgrade policy to customers for over a year while the WOB was going on. The other day, I put forward a model under the thread A glimpse of the future which was totally ignored. I must therefore presume that in the opinion of all I don't think we're ignoring you, we're just exhausted from the negative. I feel Rev has emerged from a dark buggy period into the light. We've had a few 'Rev outa do this' emails lately where the poster seemed to go on and on and complain that Rev isn't doing enough to please him, and he takes the stand of 'demanding customer'. Arguments about 'bug free is impossible' vs 'it must be bug free, screw the new features' ensues. These threads go on for weeks, then die down, then another person (who didn't read the ones before) takes over. (I won't name names...) I will mention Bill Marriot was once a big complainer (with good reason)... but the difference is that he joined the Rev team, started a 'War On Bugs!' and made a difference. I'm glad Rev exists, and if a few bumps along the road are there, I won't complain as long as I know there's work being done on my wishes. They are not Microsoft and cannot deliver the manpower in the same way. Actually they have enlisted many of us in their efforts to improve the product, and I think that's far better than Microsoft. How can you help? When you see a bug, take the time to describe it enough to repeat it, or make a movie, or demo stack and send all of it to Quality Control. It will get fixed. I've seen it happen in days. sqb -- stephen barncard s a n f r a n c i s c o - - - - - - - - - - - - ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
David- I thought of using Creative Commons licenses for software a while back - some people do. But it is not recommended by the lawyers :) Yeah - the feeling is mutual. g -- Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On Jun 7, 2007, at 5:21 PM, David Bovill wrote: Flex Builder is there and so are the compilers - The Adobe open source FAQ page states that Flex Builder IS NOT part of the open source announcement. http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex_Open_Source_FAQ Does this make sense? Yes it does and I totally agree. If the CGI engine were open you could look at that. RunRev could retain the copyright and dual licence it, and if they asked for the copyright on all the new submissions - then they could look to incorporate any bits that worked for them into the standalone engine. I don't know anything about the engine but I don't think that adding the ability define our own syntax for objects we create is something you can just tack on. I think this has to be designed into the engine and then the community can build off of that. Jerry and I have discussed the possibility of precompilers but the more we talk about it the more I think that it is not the ideal solution. I remember Scott Raney saying that the engine was basically object oriented ages ago, and that he had to drop plans to take it further as there was no demand back then. Interesting. I think that object oriented and extendable syntax would be two different things, though I don't know. Rev really needs both. One way of thinking about it is to have the ability to create language wrappers around otherwise obscure syntax of other langauges and frameworks? Right. Defining our own syntax would give us that. We would want an improved externals interface of course). I would love to have english like syntax wrapped around the QT external or a database library. Hopefully someday. I've been trying to do that with web services by creating objects and referring to properties of the object. Having (global) objects that do not require GUI elements would help a lot and simplify the syntax too. Definitely. The bummer now is that you have to use custom properties or get/set commands. Custom properties aren't as readable as built-in properties (set the uSomePropertyNameInCameCase of field MyField) and are rendered useless when lock messages is true. So the only 100% reliable solution is get/set commands which doesn't flow like the rest of the language either. Would there not be a path to do this which builds on Andres work and uses socket or pipes to existing frameworks in the short term - perhaps using the .NET DLR stuff to create a language parser in the longer term? Possibly. Personally I don't use Rev for web based solutions so I wouldn't be interested in investigating workarounds or writing language parses. There are already lots of web solutions out there that are easy to set up and have language features that web developers expect. Now if the Rev engine (running CGI, apache module, etc.) let me use english-like syntax throughout my code, create my own objects, performed well and had a web framework that made creating web applications easy I would definitely use it. But in my mind this solid foundation needs to be designed first by the folks at Runtime Revolution before you look at opening up the code (which I don't have strong feelings for or against). -- Trevor DeVore Blue Mango Learning Systems www.bluemangolearning.com-www.screensteps.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
David Bovill wrote: But then on the other hand I can't find two more volunteers to do some pretty lightweight scripting on the MC IDE, so maybe not. ;) I'd love to - though as I'm exploring the dual license possibilities I'm not sure how to mix it in with GPL code - any ideas? How to best to manage dual licenses for your own products is something I won't be able to contribute much to. I haven't read the LGPL/GPL in years, so I don't know the nuances well enough to have an opinion about how such contributions may be used in code bases governed by that license. But as far as the MetaCard IDE goes, its licensing is dirt simple: We chose the X11 license since it's about as liberal as you can get without going public domain, and allows usage of any part in any other work, even commercial products. While there are a great many areas which could benefit from some enhancement in MC, at the moment I have two specific areas we could use a hand with, and the other team members are booked with their own parts so fresh blood looks like the answer. If you -- or any of the other open source advocates here -- would be interested in exploring new ground in an open source IDE which runs under the Rev engine, here's the URL to MetaCard's home where you can find links to the latest build and to the discussion list we use for coordinating our work: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MC_IDE/ -- 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
OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
I've heard for years that open source is going to overcome closed source. I've listened to various people espousing it, heard examples of where this is said to be taking place - yet it isn't. Open Source is no more logical than Open Supermarkets where food is given away. Neither work in what is a Capitalistic world - a world I whole heartedly support as the only model we have that works most of the time at least for some of the people. It's not perfect but the alternatives are worse. Scott Bottoms up to Ayn Rand! Hear hear! Isn't Open Source about the same as creating freeware? Lots of people enjoy the benefits, one or few people do all the work, without ever getting paid for it. Which means either you are doing it as a hobby, or are independantly wealthy which takes us back to it being a hobby, or you have a strong desire to give something to the world, so you are doing it as a contribution. Or maybe you're doing it because you need it, and choose to give it away rather than sell it. Or using it to practice your programming skills, as with a school project. Yes, in some cases not as common, freeware can be used as a marketing tool for selling something else, but this method only works for a select few. I wouldn't want an Open Source Revolution. Where nobody is ultimately responsible for the bugs they create. Where anybody can muddle and there's no telling what mischief goes forth. Case in point, the whole discussion about whether a Mac Universal build should work on all flavors of OSX, or only the newer ones. Doesn't Open Source mean that one person can randomly make that decision, and implement it at his will? One person with a particular set of beliefs, that all people should have the newest computers out there with the latest and greatest OS's, goes into the source code and breaks it for anything older. Then a week later, somebody else goes in and makes it backwards compatible again? Maybe I don't know enough about Open Source, but it sounds more like anarchy to me. Or am I misunderstanding what Open Source means? I'm under the impression it means any programmer, anywhere in the world, can modify the code, without permission from anyone. Or am I misunderstanding it? I am also under the impression that Open Source software is geared toward programmers who are willing to modify the code if needed or broken, rather than a non-programmer who just wants to use a piece of software, and trust others to maintain it. Especially with something as complex as Revolution, where many people are relying on it working properly for their bread and butter. At least we have someone right now who knows the code inside and out, the history of, and the future of. I sure wouldn't want Revolution to become some grand experiment. It is far too complex for that. I think they have created an unbelievably awesome product, and they absolutely should profit from it. Their profit is our best hope of continuing our own profits. I believe that hard work should always be rewarded. We already have too many people in this world who think everything should be free, and that somebody else should do all the work. Think of the battle that authors of shareware wage against the very perception of shareware being the equivalent of freeware in the minds of many. How do you convince someone to buy it, when everybody is telling your consumers that it's supposed to be free? Shari -- Windows and Macintosh shareware games BIackjack Gold http://www.gypsyware.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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Open Source is not how software is written, it's the philosophy behind it: If what you're given doesn't work for you, you can change it (yourself, someone else, contracted, free or whatever). It does not mean that whatever changes are made are forced upon you, as for that same reason, you can change it. Deciding to adopt the differing licensing schemes available in the Open Source community, gives you the choice of whether, to name two, you want to contribute freely (GPL) or use it for commercial purposes (BSD, without the 'requirement' to release the code). GPL has given us Linux, Firefox, etc. BSD: Microsoft had used the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows 2000 (modified of course) in its commercial OS product. A lot of coders I know are moving to the Open Source world for the simple fact that they can fix it. One case: Seeing RunRev lacking certain 'facilities' (3D was high on his list, and yes, I am aware of the plugin from igame3D) he couldn't believe that a modern 'language' didn't have it built in and wasn't about to 'write an external' for something that should have been 'internal'. There is great misconception in the commercial world regarding Open Source, principally due to the heavy coating of FUD. There's a newsagent (kiosk) near me that cellotapes the cover of the magazines shut, so you can't have a look before you buy. Imagine they did the same at your local Library. Personally, I appreciate the fact that I can tinker with it. Cheers, Luis. On 6 Jun 2007, at 15:35, Shari wrote: I've heard for years that open source is going to overcome closed source. I've listened to various people espousing it, heard examples of where this is said to be taking place - yet it isn't. Open Source is no more logical than Open Supermarkets where food is given away. Neither work in what is a Capitalistic world - a world I whole heartedly support as the only model we have that works most of the time at least for some of the people. It's not perfect but the alternatives are worse. Scott Bottoms up to Ayn Rand! Hear hear! Snip Shari -- Windows and Macintosh shareware games BIackjack Gold http://www.gypsyware.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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Shari wrote: I wouldn't want an Open Source Revolution. Where nobody is ultimately responsible for the bugs they create. It is hard to beat the incentive of having your daily bread provided by product revenue. It keeps the food chain simple and direct, and provides perhaps the ultimate accountability: you don't produce, you don't eat. :) I think there are a lot of merits to the traditional proprietary model which are often overlooked as we explore new philosophies. While revolutions often provide excitement, evolutions tend to produce more sustainable results in the long term. Market dynamics have evolved the proprietary model in ways that may not be so bad for a great many products, not bad at all. Doesn't Open Source mean that one person can randomly make that decision, and implement it at his will? One person with a particular set of beliefs, that all people should have the newest computers out there with the latest and greatest OS's, goes into the source code and breaks it for anything older. Then a week later, somebody else goes in and makes it backwards compatible again? I imagine some FOSS projects are managed with the sort of anarchy, but the good ones have strong project managers who determine which contributions go in, and how. It's been said that the art of FOSS project management is ultimately the art of saying No. -- 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
From: Luis [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is great misconception in the commercial world regarding Open Source, principally due to the heavy coating of FUD. And there's absolutely, positively no FUD in the Open Souce community.? ;-) Scott ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
From: Shari [EMAIL PROTECTED] Think of the battle that authors of shareware wage against the very perception of shareware being the equivalent of freeware in the minds of many. How do you convince someone to buy it, when everybody is telling your consumers that it's supposed to be free? This is one battle we seem to have lost. No matter what organizations like the ASP have done the public (and worse the so called Computer Whizzes - I'd like to choke those guys g) insist on this line in relation to the shareware marketing model. Nothing is ever going to change that. So - the only solution is to drop the term sharewareand use the words 30 Day Trial or Commercial Demo. People who insist on calling (and demanding it to be) shareware free are not generally inclined to buy software anyway. A smart author knows that the trick is to sell to the people who are prepared to buy and thankfully there are plenty of them as Winzip, Jasc (Paint Shop Pro) and other big names (all shareware and ASP members BTW) have proven. Cheers Scott ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
A lot of coders I know are moving to the Open Source world for the simple fact that they can fix it. One case: Seeing RunRev lacking certain 'facilities' (3D was high on his list, and yes, I am aware of the plugin from igame3D) he couldn't believe that a modern 'language' didn't have it built in and wasn't about to 'write an external' for something that should have been 'internal'. I don't mind having plugins available to enhance something. And I know that many of the plugins available for Rev were created by folks on this list, often to make their own lives easier and later, shared with us as a community, or available for sale from independent developers. I've finally just installed my first one :-) This makes more sense to me than Open Source. There is a definitive command structure, and responsibility structure, and while things don't always flow exactly as one person might wish, they do flow and it does work. The whole issue of GUI's comes to mind, as well. Folks created various user interfaces for how we use Revolution (I use the Metacard interface personally). This doesn't mean they are Open Source. Nor does it mean that Revolution itself should be. They simply add functionality to Rev, and a person could easily just use Rev without ever knowing that plugins or other GUI's even exist. The primary product remains solid as a commercial software product, as it should be. Shari -- Windows and Macintosh shareware games BIackjack Gold http://www.gypsyware.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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
There's a little of everyone in each of us. Human nature. Cheers, Luis. On 6 Jun 2007, at 16:18, Scott Kane wrote: From: Luis [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is great misconception in the commercial world regarding Open Source, principally due to the heavy coating of FUD. And there's absolutely, positively no FUD in the Open Souce community.? ;-) Scott ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6 Jun 2007, at 16:32, Shari wrote: A lot of coders I know are moving to the Open Source world for the simple fact that they can fix it. One case: Seeing RunRev lacking certain 'facilities' (3D was high on his list, and yes, I am aware of the plugin from igame3D) he couldn't believe that a modern 'language' didn't have it built in and wasn't about to 'write an external' for something that should have been 'internal'. I don't mind having plugins available to enhance something. And I know that many of the plugins available for Rev were created by folks on this list, often to make their own lives easier and later, shared with us as a community, or available for sale from independent developers. I've finally just installed my first one :-) This makes more sense to me than Open Source. There is a definitive command structure, and responsibility structure, and while things don't always flow exactly as one person might wish, they do flow and it does work. The whole issue of GUI's comes to mind, as well. Folks created various user interfaces for how we use Revolution (I use the Metacard interface personally). This doesn't mean they are Open Source. Nor does it mean that Revolution itself should be. They simply add functionality to Rev, and a person could easily just use Rev without ever knowing that plugins or other GUI's even exist. The primary product remains solid as a commercial software product, as it should be. And that is the crux of it: Choice. Cheers, Luis. Shari -- Windows and Macintosh shareware games BIackjack Gold http://www.gypsyware.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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Isn't Open Source about the same as creating freeware? Lots of people enjoy the benefits, one or few people do all the work, without ever getting paid for it. Open-source products mustn't necessarily be free. And even if the software is available to use for free, in many instances, the people producing it are still making money through support contracts, custom versions, etc. As a matter of fact, some open-source products survive only because there is an organization of some sort that brings money to provide bread and butter to key people. Of course, there are quite a few true free open-source products, which are usually driven by something else than money. Robert ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
I see many threads on the list about open source but no one is talking what this move would bring to RunRev... I don't want to talk about the philosophy of the thing, I like sharing stuff, everyone here knows that, I just want to make this thread productive and not some eternal thread about opinions, the blogosphere is there just for that. We know there will be no OSS rev now, and even if the guys at Scotland decide to open it now, it would take months if not years till a workflow and community start working like they do there. It is not as if everyone would to a SVN checkout and start patching the engine. So now that we know that this will not happen and that if it did it would take a lot of time and organization to make it work on the same level as we have it working now, can someone please tell me what would we gain? I am not talking about OpenGL and adding features to the language, this can be done with a new external SDK and I know no language that has things as 3D implemented on their core level, they are always libraries, they might be bundled with the standard distributions. So let us talk about benefits, what benefits can we gain from an OSS approach, and then think do we really need OSS approach to get those benefits? Can't we create new hybrid or brand new original approaches that would grant us the same benefits? For example: Adding features - We don't need OSS for that, we need a better FFI. Porting to new platforms - We don't need full OSS for that, we need an abstraction layer, like a simple engine that would bootstrap the rest, this simple engine could be OSS while the rest is closed, like Darwin and MacOS X. Attract users - We don't need OSS to attract users, we need a better Starter Kit, demos and marketing, specially with new marketing toys such as blogs, podcasts, videos. So again, except for the fact that there might be a tsunami that sinks Scotland and RunRev with it, why do we need open source? We have engineers and developers working full time in the product. They are paying their bills and we're paying ours. I just want to make a theoretical conversation about open source become an useful conversation about goals and ways to reach such goals. andre ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
From: Luis [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a little of everyone in each of us. Human nature. Well I can't argue with that. :-) Scott ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
From: Andre Garzia [EMAIL PROTECTED] So again, except for the fact that there might be a tsunami that sinks Scotland and RunRev with it, why do we need open source? We have engineers and developers working full time in the product. They are paying their bills and we're paying ours. Well... Some scientists think Lock Ness might sit on a super volcano. g But seriously - I totally agree with you. Each point. Scott ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
What I see as an optimal model for RR isn't far at all from what we have now. I believe that the engine should stay closed as the core team seems pretty well able to handle that. I think the plugin structure and SDK needs to be developed into more of a FOSS community (by this, I mean that Rev should put some resources behind source hosting and versioning, something like freshmeat or wxcode, forums with effective moderation, etc..). I've seen many projects go both ways (buy 3rd party plugins, FOSS 3rd party plugins) and I can't really say that one approach is better than the other, but my personal druther is FOSS plugins. It leads to the FOSS model of release-early-release-often giving nice feature enhancements quickly as technology and market forces make them reasonable; but on the other hand, it keeps the core engine solid and free from Open Source Politics: you will always have a default setup that you know Just Works. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/6/2007 10:44 AM I see many threads on the list about open source but no one is talking what this move would bring to RunRev... I don't want to talk about the philosophy of the thing, I like sharing stuff, everyone here knows that, I just want to make this thread productive and not some eternal thread about opinions, the blogosphere is there just for that. We know there will be no OSS rev now, and even if the guys at Scotland decide to open it now, it would take months if not years till a workflow and community start working like they do there. It is not as if everyone would to a SVN checkout and start patching the engine. So now that we know that this will not happen and that if it did it would take a lot of time and organization to make it work on the same level as we have it working now, can someone please tell me what would we gain? I am not talking about OpenGL and adding features to the language, this can be done with a new external SDK and I know no language that has things as 3D implemented on their core level, they are always libraries, they might be bundled with the standard distributions. So let us talk about benefits, what benefits can we gain from an OSS approach, and then think do we really need OSS approach to get those benefits? Can't we create new hybrid or brand new original approaches that would grant us the same benefits? For example: Adding features - We don't need OSS for that, we need a better FFI. Porting to new platforms - We don't need full OSS for that, we need an abstraction layer, like a simple engine that would bootstrap the rest, this simple engine could be OSS while the rest is closed, like Darwin and MacOS X. Attract users - We don't need OSS to attract users, we need a better Starter Kit, demos and marketing, specially with new marketing toys such as blogs, podcasts, videos. So again, except for the fact that there might be a tsunami that sinks Scotland and RunRev with it, why do we need open source? We have engineers and developers working full time in the product. They are paying their bills and we're paying ours. I just want to make a theoretical conversation about open source become an useful conversation about goals and ways to reach such goals. andre ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 06/06/07, Randy Will [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I see as an optimal model for RR isn't far at all from what we have now. I believe that the engine should stay closed as the core team seems pretty well able to handle that. I think the plugin structure and SDK needs to be developed into more of a FOSS community (by this, I mean that Rev should put some resources behind source hosting and versioning, something like freshmeat or wxcode, forums with effective moderation, etc..). I'd go for that. Its a good solid option. They should open up the documentation as well. I remain interested in where Adobe will go with Flex and Apollo. They say they will continue to sell Flex as a commercial package. It currently sells at between $499 and $749, and i would not be surprised if the price drops hardly at all after they open source the IDE. If I was RunRev I'd go for well designed products that use the engine for the end consumer - along the lines of the current Rev Media, and support, services, closed licenses and custom add-ons for the resellers and larger customers. I believe that Richard was right about the dangers of the middle ground in trying to please developers and hobbyists alike - the middle ground is not a fun place for tool developers. ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Wasn't HyperCard semi-open-source way back because of XCMDs and XFCN?... A tool like CompilIt made it easier for non-C coders to develop an extension for HC for their own purpose. I don't think Rev has that facility that same way, but couldn't Rev become semi-open-source by providing a tool like CompilIt, fully documented and supported with an easy path designed to bring cool and widely used X-things into the IDE ... Jim on 6/6/07 12:32 PM, Shari wrote: A lot of coders I know are moving to the Open Source world for the simple fact that they can fix it. One case: Seeing RunRev lacking certain 'facilities' (3D was high on his list, and yes, I am aware of the plugin from igame3D) he couldn't believe that a modern 'language' didn't have it built in and wasn't about to 'write an external' for something that should have been 'internal'. I don't mind having plugins available to enhance something. And I know that many of the plugins available for Rev were created by folks on this list, often to make their own lives easier and later, shared with us as a community, or available for sale from independent developers. I've finally just installed my first one :-) This makes more sense to me than Open Source. There is a definitive command structure, and responsibility structure, and while things don't always flow exactly as one person might wish, they do flow and it does work. The whole issue of GUI's comes to mind, as well. Folks created various user interfaces for how we use Revolution (I use the Metacard interface personally). This doesn't mean they are Open Source. Nor does it mean that Revolution itself should be. They simply add functionality to Rev, and a person could easily just use Rev without ever knowing that plugins or other GUI's even exist. The primary product remains solid as a commercial software product, as it should be. Shari -- HiringSmart Canada is a successful international end-to-end human resource support business providing science-based assessments and productivity tools to multi-branch businesses where each branch, without the help of an HR professional, attracts, hires and engages THE RIGHT PEOPLE. We Help You Attract, Hire and Keep the Right People. www.TalentSeeker.ca www.HiringSmart.ca www.KeepingTheBest.ca HiringSmart Canada 23 Shoal Cove Road, Seabright, Nova Scotia, Canada. B3Z 3A9 Phone: 902-823-2339. Fax: 902-823-2139 ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Jim Carwardine wrote: Wasn't HyperCard semi-open-source way back because of XCMDs and XFCN?... A tool like CompilIt made it easier for non-C coders to develop an extension for HC for their own purpose. I don't think Rev has that facility that same way, but couldn't Rev become semi-open-source by providing a tool like CompilIt, fully documented and supported with an easy path designed to bring cool and widely used X-things into the IDE ... Jim HC was closed and proprietary, and Apple still guards the code even though they aren't using it any more. They provided info about the hooks required to use externals, just as Rev does, but no one outside of Apple knows how the engine works. -- 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
David Bovill wrote: On 06/06/07, Randy Will randyw at uwm.edu wrote: What I see as an optimal model for RR isn't far at all from what we have now. I believe that the engine should stay closed as the core team seems pretty well able to handle that. I think the plugin structure and SDK needs to be developed into more of a FOSS community (by this, I mean that Rev should put some resources behind source hosting and versioning, something like freshmeat or wxcode, forums with effective moderation, etc..). I'd go for that. Its a good solid option. They should open up the documentation as well. There's nothing stopping you from doing that now. Some already have. Most recently, Bjoernke von Gierke wrote BvG Docu, described in this week's newsletter: http://www.runrev.com/newsletter/may/issue27/newsletter4.php?id=n48641547 I'd love to use it, but alas it only runs in the Rev IDE, and I use MetaCard. Some years ago I wrote my own shell which imports Rev's dictionary entries into a single convenient stack, and with some help from Ray Miller, Jacque Gay, and Ken Ray it's been keeping us conveniently happy for years - it's named mcTranscriptDict.mc in the File/Extras/ section of the MetaCard IDE working group site: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MC_IDE/ mcTranscriptDict.mc is fully self-contained and designed to run in any IDE, so you can use it in Rev, MC, Galaxy, or wherever you like. It has yet to be updated to work with the changes Rev made to their XML format (it's just XML, why does it need to keep changing?), and if you or anyone else here has time to do that it would be very helpful. -- 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that with a paid model the incentive is for the developer to release feature updates that sound good to justify paying upgrade fees but that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as maintaining stable quality code. Mature open source on the other hand has the opposite incentive, stable code and only add features that people are willing to invest time in to get so you get a different evolution of features over time. Like when was the last time RunRev updated the cgi engine for RunRev? How long do bugs go without getting fixed? The first day I tried serious development with runrev I found 3 bugs with no reasonable work arounds. End of project day one. I posted them and it took over a year before the first one got fixed. I don't mind paying for software, but unless somebody besides the marketing director is deciding where to expend programmer resources you get a different product. So it is possible to get a powerful feature set but it takes visionary leadership and some courage to forgo the easy profits from rapid paid update cycles fir the long term profitibility of bullet proof code and well designed functionality. many times software starts out that way. Visionary technologists with the skill and determination to make good software but once the VC's and others get involved the vision gets lost and it becomes software by buzz factor. As an example of good paid software I suggest Google's sketchup. I have been a user for years and those guys agonize over every feature. At first I thought they over did it by not having enough features but with time I find the simplicity makes the program all that much more powerful. In my opinion when the number of new bugs exceeds a small fraction of the number of new features then the bias is way too much on the make new features side so we can justify a paid upgrade (which of course comes along with we don't support the old version anymore so if you want any bug fixes you have to get the new version with the new new bugs). The unpaid model of open source forces an economy of development resources that usually means power over hype. Whereas in the paid sphere the only thing motivating economy of development is discipline, a much weaker motivation. ___ 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: OT: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/6/07, Luis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does not mean that whatever changes are made are forced upon you, as for that same reason, you can change it. GPL has given us Linux, Firefox, etc. OOPS, not so fast...have you seen the stir GPL 3 is causing? Turns out if you plan on using GPL 3 code in a commercial product, there will be several pending restrictions-- which your customer/client may find not only objectable, but in TiVo's case, completely destructive. And I quote: *(The GPL 3) no longer works in the fairness sense. It's purely a firebrand, and only good for the extremist policies of the FSF. It's no longer a nice balance that a lot of people can accept, and that a lot of companies can stand behind once you explain it to them.* --Linus Torvalds, Linux founder See Torvalds critical of new GPL draft http://news.com.com/Torvalds+critical+of+new+GPL+draft/2100-7344_3-6099475.html?tag=item ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
On 6/6/07, Samuel M. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that with a paid model the incentive is for the developer to release feature updates that sound good to justify paying upgrade fees but that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as maintaining stable quality code. Mature open source on the other hand has the opposite incentive, stable code and only add features that people are willing to invest time in to get so you get a different evolution of features over time. Brilliant. ___ 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: Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)
Samuel M. Smith wrote: The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that with a paid model the incentive is for the developer to release feature updates that sound good to justify paying upgrade fees but that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as maintaining stable quality code. A lot of folks here used to cry out for free bug-fix upgrades, but last time Rev delivered one they complained it didn't address all of them and left out too many feature requests. ;) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.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
