Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: oss revisited (briefly!)

From: SunandaDH:aol at: 10-Feb-2004 4:09

> Frankly, I'd rather buy a QA'd, tested, polished REBOL "distribution" > that packages core and (contributed) modules than anything that's > currently on offer, or a quarterly subscription to such a distribution > or whatever.
That's the approach that has made Redhat and others commercial successes in a world that gives away software. Much the same model could apply to REBOL too. Tom:
> No, open source means the source is open. It doesn't > need to be any more complicated than this.
I was basing my observation that it is a marketing strategy on the Open Source Initiative's home page where they say: Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world. That's marketing! Their definition is also a little more convoluted: But they are trying to distinguish themselves from Free Software -- which many would argue is an Even Better Thing: Tom:
> I'm not trying to be argumentative (really!). Tim is right, > though, if you have to think of only one good thing > about oss, think more resources.
I completely agree with both of you, and Tim's example about the /binary bug is a good example of how long it can take to fix things when the resources are limited -- and, also, the resources have other priorities I get the impression (I may be wrong) from the interactions on Altme REBOL-View that Carl is now the *only* developer at RT. If so, he may now have the freedom, and perhaps the necessity, (if not the time) to think about a different about a different development strategy for REBOL. And, if so, he'd find a lot of enthusiasm from people on this list for sight of the source in exchange for bug fixes, enhancements and optimisations. That could be a step towards open source, Sunanda.