On 5. 2. 2015, at 1:42, Hugi Thordarson <[email protected]> wrote: > Apple cares about money, not us.
Oh, absolutely! Given the zilliards Apple charges for WebObjects licences... oh, wait. Actually I just don't get it -- for long long years I don't get it at all. (i) first, they seriously cripple the world's best web application framework by cutting out the ObjC support, leaving it Java-only, and thus half-unusable. (ii) then they stop bundling it. (iii) then they stop supporting it at all. All right, I can see after (i) they could hardly charge any money for licencing, whilst the support price would skyrocket; but why on earth not put it to open source at the same moment?!? The same company who is known to put _lots_ of pretty interesting things to public (see Darwin). Oh, sigh. About the only (dumb and conspirational) theory I can think of is that were the sources open, hacking App Store would get the usual 'varsity freaks pastime :) > > - hugi > > > >> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2015/02/03/coreclr-is-now-open-source.aspx >> >> The github is here >> >> https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr >> >> It’s a shame Apple never did the same with WO. > > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ocs%40ocs.cz > > This email sent to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
