Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Richard Gaskin
Richmond wrote: Nothing is intrinsically wrong with RevNet, it is just very out-of-date. Agreed. It could use some pruning of the stacks it has access to, and a freshened appearance. Those and more are on my to-do list, but client work pays for that so I must continue to give priority to s

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Richmond
On 06/21/2012 05:55 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Richmond wrote: > I would characterise RunRev as a company that produces a super > product, but is signally bad at follow-up with bug reports and > maintenance of components (such as Rev-Online and RevNet)... To clarify, RevNet is not a product of R

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Richard Gaskin
Alex Tweedly wrote: On 20/06/2012 01:23, Richard Gaskin wrote: In LiveCode, see Development->Plugins->GoRevNet, and once there see the Stacks section. RevNet was the first community-based stack sharing service, later somewhat displaced by the advent of RevOnline two years later. It all still

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Richard Gaskin
Alex Tweedly wrote: On 20/06/2012 15:49, Richard Gaskin wrote: On-Rev is still in business as a shared hosting alternative with RevServer preinstalled, and RevServer itself is kinda nifty and also remains available, currently at v5.0.1 (understandable that it's not using 5.5 since most of the a

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Tim Jones
Not what I meant - it's easy to "miss" reports in a feedback system. I was asking if you've contacted one of the staff directly. Much harder to miss such a request. Tim On Jun 20, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote: > Yes, but even if they had not, they posted to the quality center which is

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Richard Gaskin
Richmond wrote: > I would characterise RunRev as a company that produces a super > product, but is signally bad at follow-up with bug reports and > maintenance of components (such as Rev-Online and RevNet)... To clarify, RevNet is not a product of RunRev Ltd., but was created and is maintained

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Richmond
On 21/06/12 10:20, Rolf Kocherhans wrote: Hello Tim Yes ! We probably all have ! My last try was yesterday ! This is the response I got one months ago: Ticket#201205091326 Hello Rolf, Hopefully I will be tackling this issue with revOnline soon, but unfortunately I c

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-21 Thread Rolf Kocherhans
Hello Tim Yes ! We probably all have ! My last try was yesterday ! This is the response I got one months ago: Ticket#201205091326 Hello Rolf, Hopefully I will be tackling this issue with revOnline soon, but unfortunately I can't give you any estimate or assurances a

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Dr. Hawkins
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012, Mark Wieder wrote: > > I just looked, and my earliest still-waiting-to-be-confirmed bug > report is from early 2004. > I got bit in 1999 by a bug in MS word on windows that existed in 1.0 Mac (almost blank page when footnote miscalculated). It's still there, for all I

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Mark Wieder
Andre- Tuesday, June 19, 2012, 11:01:09 PM, you wrote: > Weeks??? I have pet bugs that have been sitting there for YEARS I just looked, and my earliest still-waiting-to-be-confirmed bug report is from early 2004. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Alex Tweedly
On 20/06/2012 15:49, Richard Gaskin wrote: On-Rev is still in business as a shared hosting alternative with RevServer preinstalled, and RevServer itself is kinda nifty and also remains available, currently at v5.0.1 (understandable that it's not using 5.5 since most of the additions are for the

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Alex Tweedly
On 20/06/2012 01:23, Richard Gaskin wrote: In LiveCode, see Development->Plugins->GoRevNet, and once there see the Stacks section. RevNet was the first community-based stack sharing service, later somewhat displaced by the advent of RevOnline two years later. It all still works, and I would

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Bob Sneidar
Yes, but even if they had not, they posted to the quality center which is actually where they are supposed to. They are saying that no response has come to those posts. It would be better if someone came back and said, "We really do not have time at present to address this issue." or else, "We p

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Tim Jones
I don't mean to play "Obvious Man" here, but has anyone actually contacted Heather, et al and asked for it to be fixed? Tim On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Richard- > > You are, I think, missing the point. The issue is more about > announcing a new initiative, getting users

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Mark Wieder
Richard- You are, I think, missing the point. The issue is more about announcing a new initiative, getting users started down that path, and then abandoning things. When was the last time the broken on-rev client got updated? I can't imagine anyone on the team taking the time to revisit this. Nor

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Mark Wieder
Richard- Well, I'm not disagreeing with anything you said there. I just don't see any third-party options having the traction needed to make this work. Look at the usage differences between the runrev web forum and the LiveJournal web forum, for instance. It's not a matter of what content is there

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread René Micout
Le 20 juin 2012 à 17:07, Richard Gaskin a écrit : > Similarly, community-oriented tools like RevOnline could conceivably become > community-driven. Portions of the IDE as well. YES ! ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Pleas

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Richard Gaskin
Mark Wieder wrote: ... > it would look really bad for the company to have this added as Yet > Another Failed Runrev Initiative. I'm not clear what you mean, Mark: would it look bad to provide a community-based solution for sharing stack files? I like to imagine a future in which RunRev consid

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Richard Gaskin
Richmond wrote: > Mark Wieder wrote: >> (notice that I succeeded in not mentioning web deployment, on-rev, >> RevMedia, DreamCard, etc by name) > > That list does seem a bit long. Not so much when you look at the details: RevMedia and DreamCard were just different names for the same experiment

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Richard Gaskin
Mark Wieder wrote: Also, on a completely different level, the process of finding workarounds on this list is a bonding experience that builds the online community as we work together to hone our skills. I'm constantly amazed by the brilliant snippets of code that folks here come up with. Beaut

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-20 Thread Mark Wieder
Richmond- Tuesday, June 19, 2012, 11:17:43 PM, you wrote: > One of my least favourite words on this user-list is "Work-around", and Well, that point I may take issue with. If there's a problem with the engine or IDE or somesuch and there does exist a workaround, then I'm less frantic about the b

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Richmond
On 06/20/2012 09:01 AM, Andre Garzia wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: I have several QCC reports that have been sitting in silence for several weeks Weeks??? I have pet bugs that have been sitting there for YEARS For example: * Can't take snapshot of second

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Richmond
On 06/20/2012 04:02 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: Alex, Richard- Yes, but... three things: it wouldn't have the authority of the company behind it, in the way that the Apple store, etc does I don't recall a link from the runrev site to LiveCode Journal, or it's somewhere out of the way. it would loo

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Andre Garzia
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > I have several QCC reports that have been sitting in silence for several > weeks > Weeks??? I have pet bugs that have been sitting there for YEARS For example: * Can't take snapshot of second monitor (entered in 2006) * Can't take sna

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Richmond
On 06/20/2012 03:01 AM, Alex Tweedly wrote: RevOnline has been effectively broken for a long time. Long enough that we should be able to predict that it won't be fixed any time soon. And I think that's probably a good resource allocation decision for runrev. revonline is basically a websit

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Peter Haworth
Hi Mark, I'd have more sympathy for all that if the many QCC reports on the issue had received a response of some sort, even if it was "Sorry guys, we know it's broken but it's not a high enough priority for us to fix right now". Mine never received a response, not sure if any did. I have several

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Mark Wieder
Alex, Richard- Yes, but... three things: it wouldn't have the authority of the company behind it, in the way that the Apple store, etc does I don't recall a link from the runrev site to LiveCode Journal, or it's somewhere out of the way. it would look really bad for the company to have this add

Re: LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Richard Gaskin
Alex Tweedly wrote: RevOnline has been effectively broken for a long time. Long enough that we should be able to predict that it won't be fixed any time soon. And I think that's probably a good resource allocation decision for runrev. revonline is basically a website to collect stacks and simi

LiveCodeOnline [Was: Re: Rev Online]

2012-06-19 Thread Alex Tweedly
RevOnline has been effectively broken for a long time. Long enough that we should be able to predict that it won't be fixed any time soon. And I think that's probably a good resource allocation decision for runrev. revonline is basically a website to collect stacks and similar resources, and