[REBOL] Re: Rebol SDK vs Command
From: carl:cybercraft at: 16-Sep-2007 9:12
On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 14:29:07 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>> It's not that they choose one or the other, it's that there's a huge lot of
>people who just won't touch a new language unless it's open-source. And with
>good reason, as you're putting your eggs in a basket that other people control
>if the language you use isn't open-source. If it's open-source they'll look
>at it - otherwise not.
>>
>> -- Carl Read.
>>
>>
>Well, I used Amiga, because it was cool. I use REBOL, because it is
>cool.
And look where Amiga is now. A lot would still be using it if it had even a quarter
of the popularity of Linux.
And if REBOL was open-source, isn't it just possible that someone somewhere might've
brought out a 1.3 version of View for it in response RT abandoning support for Amiga?
>I don't want such ppl to touch REBOL then, that is all. One either
>is enthusiast, or is not. Yes, R2 model was terrible, we could not
>correct/fix/extend almost anything. R3 changes it almost completly. So,
>do those ppl REALLY see source of the core kernel itself? Why? What for?
>Just for the sake of seeing some code?
It's not about 'seeing some code' or enthusiasm. It's about security. It's about knowing
if feature X isn't available with the main source that someone, somewhere might've already
produced it, or if it isn't, that at least it'll be possible to make. And it's also
about knowing that if the platform your software is running on 'advances' and stops your
software from running, you won't have to wait until the only company in the universe
that can fix this gets around to doing so - assuming they even plan to.
>I think, that with hybrid
>licensing, they can feel safe enough. And who knows, maybe after some
>time, RT will open even kernel sources. If RT would went down, it was
>already being taking for, even for R2, the code would go to Escrow. So
>what prevents thouse ppl from feeling safe? Their fanatism?
History. Including REBOL's history. See Amiga above, or BeOS or the other abandoned
OSs. REBOL was promoted as a cross-platform language, and with a vengence. "42 platforms
supported" etc. That was the hype and they delivered until the bubble burst. But it
has burst, so buyer-beware from now on. They weren't able to deliver long-term on their
promises, so why should we believe any current or future promises?
I'm not a C programmer and have no intention of learning it anytime soon. But I'll be
sticking with REBOL though, because I love it. This isn't about me - I'm just being
realistic here. There's just way too many roadblocks for REBOL while it's proprietary
software. It's like the drunk searching for something under the lamp-post at night.
When asked what he was doing, he said he was looking for the penny he'd dropped. And
when asked where he thought he'd dropped it, he pointed off into the darkness. So of
course he was then asked why he was looking under the lamp-post, to which he replied
that he could at least see things under the lamp-post.
From RT's POV, staying proprietary might look the easiest way to make money from REBOL,
but I doubt it's where any pennies are and it's certainly not any way to have an effect
of the direction computing's going - except indirectly, by others incorporating REBOL's
good points into other languages. They need to bite the bullet and decide to make it
fully open-source and then figure out how to make money from it under those conditions.
-- Carl Read.
