[REBOL] Re: Follow Up: What's Up Rebol?
From: robbo1mark:aol at: 7-Mar-2002 7:27
I rigthfully agree that the HTMLified apporach is a band aid solution however the languages
you named in this approach ARE already widely available for FREE and installed on most
servers AND / OR clients.
An Symbolic Expression based language like REBOL for me is the best way forward for both
client side and server side software and also lots of common programming tasks in general.
However for this to happen REBOL we needs to get REBOL onto the clients and servers.
Just now all distribution of REBOL can only happen via RT Inc. and they are looking to
sell PAID for Interpreters like /Pro and /Command which fully enable the client and server
For me the best way would be for RT Inc. to unencumber these products by removing all
restrictions on redistribution, ie allow anyone to download and distribute freely for
either commercial or non-commercial purposes. This way REBOL can get into everywhere.
Now this might interfere with RT Inc. current busines plan and attempts to get revenues
but how many people are actually buying and using /Pro & /Command when they can get the
Perl, PHP, Python etc.
These languages are all available for NO FEE and are entrenched in both the client and
REBOL as a language is superior in a lot of ways.
However it is currently a small minority interest and attempting charge for and limit
the distribution of runtime executables is not and will not do the language any favours
in my opinion.
Developers use these other tools because they know they can use and distribute their
software with confidence because necessary runtimes are already on the client and server
or if they're not then they can be bundled with the software or automatically downloaded
FOR NO FEE!
With Microsoft.Net slated to become the next major development platform (and also equivalent
open source clones) these will most likely be included as part of the operating system
and pre-installed and paid for by OEM's , no doubt with the usual typical Microsoft persuasiveness
So this is another runtime - perhaps the CLR wil become the dominant runtime who knows?
- that will be extremely widely available on the client / server side
so yet even more competition for REBOL.
I just don't see how RT's current policy of charging for runtimes with additional features,
which is quite standard and typical functionaity available already in these other languages,
as well as the restrictions on distributing, commercial / non-commercial etc. is in anyway
going to help US to advance the use of REBOL as a technology. Of course this affects
RT Inc. as well.
As to questions about how do RT In.c make money - well as far as I can see
how IOS is a SOLUTION developed on top of the "core" functionalities of REBOL and how
they can charge for developing, selling and supporting this "added value".
REBOL/Encap is fine as a tool which lets you create "executables" but please lets drop
the "per runtime" fees / restrictions. I can see how relatively small one-off fee for
the /Encap program is justified as this is not a client or server runtime but a specialist
tool which help creates
added value for developers, however the fee should be low enough for even for developers
who create and distribute "free of charge" executables to afford.
I can see how they can make money by selling and developing REBOL/IOS as a valuable and
much needed SOLUTION in certain identifiable target markets and they should go for this.
However they do themselves, us and REBOL as a technology NO favours at all by the fees
and distribution restrictions which currently hinder us all.
Iam not advocating "open source" here just the right for us to be able to use and distribute
the full funtionality of REBOL freely and without restriction.
It is only by this way do we stand any chance of creating the widespread use of REBOL
and create a market for OUR skills, and even then the competition is still very tough,
more entrenched and better organised and / or financed.
REBOL does stand a chance though because it is a great and powerful language tool but
we have to remove the barriers which help to stifle it's potential growth.
Will any of this happen? probably not!
Just me spouting my two pence worth as usual 8-)
In a message dated Thu, 7 Mar 2002 6:02:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Jim Richards"