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
