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

(No subject)MIME-Version: 1.0

 [1/8] from: carl:cybercraft at: 8-Jul-2002 21:54


On 08-Jul-02, [riusa--email--it] wrote:
>> I only see one problem here: how would the player be different >> from /View?
<<quoted lines omitted: 23>>
> etc...), a full console help, a good debugger. > What do you think about it?
Going by posts in the past, RT are trying to avoid the situation where a large company can use many copies of REBOL without having to pay for them, hence the "not free for commercial use" licencing. If there was a free "player" and a commercial developer version, how do you prevent a large company buying just one developer version while using the player version throughout the company for running the software created with the developer version? In other words, if RT didn't want that to happen they'd need a "free only for non-comercial use" licence on the player version, and we'd be back to where we started. So I don't think there's a technical solution to this licencing problem. RT wants their share from everyone using REBOL for commercial gain, (and fair enough), but it's a hard sell. As someone said to me with regards to REBOL licencing, when they buy a hammer they don't expect to have to give the hammer-seller a percentage of everything they sell that they make with the hammer. With REBOL though, REBOL needs to be included with what you sell, hence it's different to a hammer. Not that I don't think a free-player commercial-developer-kit split isn't a good way forward for REBOL. It'd be an excellent way to make it popular, but whether RT would do as well out of that approach as out of their current approach is a different matter. REBOL does need a certain level of popularity though else there won't be enough people who know how to program it to go around. -- Carl Read

 [2/8] from: atruter:hih:au at: 9-Jul-2002 9:25


> REBOL does need a certain level of popularity though else there won't be
enough
> people who know how to program it to go around.
What, not enough RTCE type folks around? ;) Seriously though, the difference between a technology that people *want* to learn despite lack of commercial use compared to technologies that people are *forced* to learn bodes well does it not? Anyway, one of the great strengths of REBOL is that complex problems have simple solutions; sure the more REBOL experience you have the more elegant that solution will be, but I'd say that given even rudimentary REBOL skills at least *a* solution is possible ( could the same be said for Java, C#, C++? ). Not trying to start a flame-war here, but the few non-IT folks I've spent two or so hours with in REBOL have walked way at least able to do something in REBOL on their own, while I doubt I'd get much past the IDE of aforesaid languages (let alone headers, conditional compilation, etc). Having "users" actually able to modify / code in the language of implementation (granted it will be as rare as power-user macro writers) means the potential pool of skill should be a much higher percentage (eg. if 1% of folks who use C# can actually code in it, then I'd expect a larger percentage in the REBOL world - even if the absolute number is less). Enough ranting for today. Regards, Ashley

 [3/8] from: carl:cybercraft at: 7-Nov-2002 12:30


On 07-Nov-02, pat665 wrote:
> Hi, > It seems that http://www.escribe.com/internet/rebol/index.html is > not responding.
No - been down for a week or more. Of course, if it was working you would've seen the earlier messages mentioning it there- umm, except that they wouldn't have been there then, of course... -- Carl Read

 [4/8] from: carl:cybercraft at: 8-Nov-2002 10:13


On 08-Nov-02, mb wrote:
> Hi Carl , >> It seems that http://www.escribe.com/internet/rebol/index.html is >> responding. >> Pat > It seems to work here (YAM 2.1/2.2). Maybe you should try upgrade...
I am - to a PC... Sigh...
> regards.mb
-- Carl Read

 [5/8] from: chalz::earthlink::net at: 7-Nov-2002 16:59


Am I missing something, or are people on crack? Escribe isn't responding, neither from my personal machine (IE5.5, Win98SE, cable connection) nor from my webhost provider's (lynx, RedHat 8.x, T1), and we're in different parts of the US even.

 [6/8] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 7-Nov-2002 16:44


I've been unable to retrieve content from escribe either at work or at home (company connection to 'net is substantially different from local RR service). I'm wondering if those who seem to get to it have confirmed live connection vs. cached copies of previously-fetched content??? -jn- Charles wrote:
> Am I missing something, or are people on crack? Escribe isn't responding, > neither from my personal machine (IE5.5, Win98SE, cable connection) nor from my
<<quoted lines omitted: 26>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Neely joelDOTneelyATfedexDOTcom 901-263-4446

 [7/8] from: louisaturk:coxinet at: 7-Nov-2002 17:10


It's not working for me either. Louis At 04:59 PM 11/7/2002 -0500, you wrote:

 [8/8] from: carl:cybercraft at: 8-Nov-2002 12:58


On 08-Nov-02, Charles wrote:
> Am I missing something, or are people on crack? Escribe isn't > responding, neither from my personal machine (IE5.5, Win98SE, cable > connection) nor from my webhost provider's (lynx, RedHat 8.x, T1), > and we're in different parts of the US even.
The YAM comments refer to the email subject-line, not Escribe - I don't think anyone can get to Escribe at the moment. Carl.
>> On 08-Nov-02, mb wrote: >>> Hi Carl ,
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
>> -- >> Carl Read
-- Carl Read

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted