World: r3wp

ok ... I guess I need to do another encap

Yes, there was a few critical fixes, and especially one for response 
buffer corruption. If you hit these bugs, I can only suggest you 
to upgrade.

Btw, I'm planning to freeze current SVN for a couple of weeks to 
release a new official version. I still have to patch a few recently 
added features and test the MTA more extensively first.

I'll setup a new CureCode instance for Cheyenne (and CureCode itself) 
this weekend. It would make it easier to follow Cheyenne's fixes.

I was reluctant to do that before, CureCode wasn't able to run multiple 
instances of itself on the same Cheyenne. Since 0.9.10, it's fixed, 
so I'm in the process of collecting all my current CC instances scattered 
around on multiple servers on the same Cheyenne server.

<and put them> on the same Cheyenne server.

Let us know when it's all working so we can do the same :)

It's already working now with latest Cheyenne+CC. I already have 
a Cheyenne instance running 2 CC instances for a customer since a 
week without issues. I've tested locally with up to 4 instances, 
each with different settings without any issue so far.

Sorry, Doc, had to sleep. I'm using Windows (XP).

I have an idea, if R3 is 'all the news', why not source R2?

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts R2 takes off, and R3 languishes.

doubtful

put up your doughnuts

open sourcing something doesn't magically increase its development 
momentum. been there, done that.

It seems to me that there's a bit of misunderstanding here on how 
OSS works. My understanding is that peoples are willing to contribute, 
because they *need* something and they *can* obtain it by modifying 
the source code. Expecting that your product development forces will 
magically increase because you're going open source is, in the general 
case, an illusion. People will contribute only if they're interested 
in your product, have a need to fullfill, and time/skills to make 
it. So, a critical mass of users is required to get enough contributions. 
If you don't get enough contributions, don't blame it on the open 
source approach, blame it on your product (or on your communication), 
because it doesn't attrack enough people to reach the required critical 
mass.

The other issue is that many of the open source projects are just 
too "hard" for the casual user to contribute.  It requires lots of 
documentation to get up to speed and often that is lacking.

That's why "critical mass" is important to reach. If, for example, 
1% of a user base is skilled enough and willing to contribute to 
an open source project, you need to get at least, a thousand users 
to expect significant contributions.

So, the options are either obtain a critical mass by waiting for 
a 1000 users, or, improve the docs to reduce the potential critical 
mass

Or provide a good enough support, so that people won't get stuck 
with bugs for months or years.

Henrik, I think misunderstands the value of users who report bugs 
...

Bug reporting is very important ...

It's vital for any software.

In the past, Carl has made a few attempt at OSS, but it seems to 
me, without understanding how it works. I guess that's why he was 
disappointed when View Desktop was opened for all to modify and he 
received no contribution after several months. The issue was not 
with open sourcing it, it was IMO, in the simple fact that (let's 
put it in crude words) : nobody really cares about View Desktop!

He should have tried with IOS ...

Has he OS'd anything else?

I remember the calendar app was broken in IOS and the source was 
hidden. But that got fixed by efhishant

The situation with REBOL language is very different: it's our base 
programming tool, so it's extremely important for us to get it working 
right and keep on improving it. We are also lucky because the % of 
rebolers with good enough C skills and CS understanding is quite 
high for such a small community, so, (getting to the conclusion), 
if R2 was fully open sourced (real OSS, I mean BSD or GPL, not RLA), 
you can bet on it becoming the faster growing project of all times 
in the REBOL world! I think the main issue in that case would be 
to properly organize all the contributions.

Why not open source R3 instead!

Doc, not caring about the Viewtop isn't entirely true. The problem 
is also that all REBOL experts are very busy with other projects. 
 For R2 it could have been an essential script deployment tool for 
end-users, but that's too late now, and ReBrowse is a much better 
idea anyway.

the potential problem with open sourcing r2 is that you lose all 
your r3 developers ...

Open sourcing R3 core wouldn't help anything. Is it because you are 
up in arms over some curecode bugs that haven't been fixed in a couple 
of months? The important parts to have open are already open and 
of course we have people working on those parts. The process that 
R3 is following now is largely correct.

I bear no arms ...

Open sourcing R3 core wouldn't help anything
. I couldn't disagree more.

Just an observation that the developer base shrinks as time progresses 
...and I doubt anything apart from open sourcing r3 will help

well, doc... do you think the curecode bugs would then magically 
be fixed?

Whether anyone is able help with the source is not relevant ...

Graham, I don't agree with that observation. In fact we've gained 
a few people the last year or so.

the open sourcing is requirement for most serious developers ...

Graham, so if that's irrelevant, should it just be open sourced by 
principle?

Why? Do you intend to read the source code and be happy with that? 
What good does it do, if it doesn't reduce the number of bugs, vastly 
improve the design or in other ways lift R3 beyond where it is now?

It's the principle ...

anyway we should move this to advocacy

but Gabriele and Cyphre have been blocked by lack of access to the 
code ... that is a matter of record

James: Latest Cheyenne binary for windows : http://cheyenne-server.org/tmp/cheyenne-rev66.exe

Do you think the curecode bugs would then magically be fixed?

 Do you really think that this is my intent by having it open sourced? 
 It's open source because its the logical way to distribute such applications 
 nowadays, offering to any user full insight and control over the 
 product.

but if you read this page:

http://www.rebol.com/rebol3/architecture.html


giving the user full "control" over the product is not the intent 
with R3. If you want "control", use one of the many variants of Python 
or Ruby. I quote "control", because at the end of the day, "control" 
will remove one of REBOL's greatest strengths in that there are no 
official derivatives of the language, that the user will just have 
to wrestle with.


Insight is another issue, which can be noble enough for educational 
purposes, and for that, the core would likely make a good study.

Open sourcing R3 core wouldn't help anything

 -- that severely underestimates the skillset available in this community

Yes, I'd estimate that a lot of bugs reported would then have patches 
available now

Wow, wrong group.

Totally :)