Follow Up: What's Up Rebol?
[1/5] from: jrichards::starband::net at: 7-Mar-2002 5:44
[2/5] from: robbo1mark:aol at: 7-Mar-2002 7:27
[3/5] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 7-Mar-2002 13:01
> Now this might interfere with RT Inc. current busines plan and attempts to
> These languages are all available for NO FEE and are entrenched in both
the client and server sides. Yes I agree. This is very important point. Even a recent trivial example reveals the problem: I just added a link on my admin web page to run a Linux shell script to update my server log reports. I had to do it in PHP, as I only have REBOL/Command for win32: <?php system("/etc/webalizer_all_sites", $return); ?> If I want to keep using REBOL on this site [and I do], I imagine I'll be doing lots of hybrid programming with Python and PHP to overcome REBOL's default system/shell limitations. But its messy and annoying. Or did I miss something ?? I cannot really convince [not-for-profit] site owners to spend a $350 for something we don't functionally need. As a developer, I would be in a stronger position if I paid the /Command $350 price once, but were then free to take the preferred tool with me across platform and project. At least if REBOL/Command offered inclusive cross-platform support for one price, it would been consistent with write-once run-eveywhere philosophy. RT follows Macromedia strategy where developers must buy Mac and Win32 copies at full price everytime. Most only use the second copy for testing, and have been railing [unsuccessfully] for years against MM to offer developer incentives. If not willing to offer single cross-platform proce how about a radical discount for the additional platform copies. I think RT is in a terrible bind here.. How to generate income without discouraging or obstructing developers? Decent income comes probably not from selling a handful of developer kits but from selling applications made with it. There's *many* more people willing to buy cool, useful easy-to-run easy-to-install applications for $19.95, $49.95 than innovative off-the-radar languages. I guess that's the thinking behind IOS but somehow it does not hit me that way. The catch-22 is that people buying applications really don't care what they were written with as long as they work well. Except when the applications features openScripting with 'xyz' language. AREXX anyone? ./Jason
[4/5] from: jmalv:ho:tmail at: 7-Mar-2002 20:00
I recently bought Rebol/command and it was quite a big expenditure taking into account it's only one platform (and I am an independent developer). The reality is I needed it for two other platforms (BSD and Win32) but I thought buying it for these other platforms and paying $350 is too much so I am using Python on these platforms and Rebol/command only on Linux. As a result my use of Rebol/command is very limited. I have posted two messages today to see whether there are other Rebol/command developers that are interested in similar projects to the ones I am interested but I am worried I will not get any replies. I agree there is a catch-22 between revenues and adoption. Although I like Command I am worried that IŽll be one of the very few using it and that is a problem for adoption. I think RT should consider getting a program for the early adopters, which are the developers that will help RT drive long term success (remember Crossing the Chasm, Inside the Tornado, etc.). This should involve paying some small amount per year and getting in return access to e.g. cross platform Command and some premium support. Maybe on top of this it would be much easier to get another program for system integrators /enterprise developers instead of Rebol/IOS/link developer program. M$FT has done this really well with MSDN. Why not copy the good marketing ideas ? BTW, I like what RT is doing with the language (e.g. no GNU license). I am willing to pay for premium platform software (e.g. command) that has an edge but if there is no good developer marketing it will be really hard for us to bet more time and money on Rebol. GNU is great but it doesnŽt mean everybody has to follow that option. I think Carl had mentioned in an interview that the licensing could change in the future and that the language is too new. I agree with that, RT is doing the work (except maybe developer marketing) and there is no need to use GNU to improve the language (adoption is not an argument b/c anybody can use core). I think committed developers like many on this list are the ones that drive core adoption and finally widespread adoption for RT technologies. Pls take care of us ! Jose Regards
>From: "Jason Cunliffe" <[jason--cunliffe--verizon--net]> >Reply-To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
<<quoted lines omitted: 51>>>[rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the >subject, without the quotes.
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
[5/5] from: al:bri:xtra at: 8-Mar-2002 16:47
> HTMLification is doomed for failure because it is a bandaid approach which
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted