Rebol SDK vs Command
[1/30] from: ale870:gm:ail at: 14-Sep-2007 17:54
Hello,
I have a BIG problem.
I need to create a big rebol app, and I wanted to use SDK (even for
distribution strategies). But I noticed that only Command version (maybe
even old!) supports SSL over HTTP.
How can I do to use SDK features + Command (and distributing packaged apps,
like EXE)?
More: are these packages updated?
Thank you!
--
//Alessandro
http://sguish.wordpress.com
http://laccio.wordpress.com
[2/30] from: gregg::pointillistic::com at: 14-Sep-2007 12:01
Hi Alessandro,
> I need to create a big rebol app, and I wanted to use SDK (even for
> distribution strategies). But I noticed that only Command version
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> packaged apps,
> like EXE)?
The Command SDK will have everything you need. I'm not sure what
products are what anymore, but you can certainly do what you need;
just make sure they know what you want to do, so you get the right
product.
Newer versions are available here: http://www.rebol.net/builds/
--Gregg
[3/30] from: ale870:gma:il at: 14-Sep-2007 20:20
thank you Gregg, I found them.
Now I will need to check if everything is fully updated at the most recent
versions :-)
Thank you!
On 9/14/07, Gregg Irwin <gregg-pointillistic.com> wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
> > I need to create a big rebol app, and I wanted to use SDK (even for
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
> To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to
> lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
--
//Alessandro
http://sguish.wordpress.com
http://laccio.wordpress.com
[4/30] from: carl:cybercraft at: 15-Sep-2007 11:53
On Friday, 14-September-2007 at 12:01:28 Gregg Irwin wrote,
>I'm not sure what products are what anymore,
Which succinctly sums up RT's problems as a 'business'. It doesn't open-source, so REBOL
can't become a popular language, and it doesn't do the business basics to make it succeed
as closed-source software.
-- Carl Read.
[5/30] from: greg::schofield::iinet::net::au at: 15-Sep-2007 11:06
Carl, I for one see problems with core code becoming open-source.
Bloat and extras, have a terrible effect especially on a language like REBOL, I would
not like it to folloow Python.
On the other hand LUA has managed to keep its core "pure" and small and effectively the
source available to anyone - its problem seems to be that it has become a language imbedded
in a lot of software but not cohereing into an environment.
I am obviously very new and ignornant, but one way I see REBOL standing out is as an
application environment, indeed a see it as having a possible future as THE application
environment in a lot of areas.
Diverse hosting is a problem, small OSes need to easily have REBOL ported to them without
central responsiblity for doing it.
Another way of seeing things develop, business and technology wise is to find a good
niche for REBOL's Wildman project - that is a fixed architecture machine/console with
a large enough market to supply the capital to port hosted REBOL consistantly over all
OSes, more or less, without exception.
Obviously I am thinking of the PS3 and PSP market and ancillaries to this as a begining
point, but a modest number of PDAs and powerful multipurpose Phones and other fixed-architecture
HW would form a strong starting base.
The problem then is to have at least common productivity software genres, and familar
functions and extensions, to make REBOL Wildman worth buying.
The thrid option, is to make REBOL core source available, on an as is basis - a licensing
agreement (how the hell it would be enforced I don't know) where the source can only
be used for porting and only "adpated" for that purpose.
But once released there is no getting things back, multiple slightly incompatible REBOLs,
or REBOL itself bloating because of innovations elsewhere with the source code would
in my opinion be no good.
I prefer the Wildman approach, one because it is sorely needed. A miniscule OS and a
script based application environment resting on generalised compiled "plugins" is my
idea of the future for computing - I believe we have reached the end of a blind alley
with OS development in its current form - the Wildman approach seems to cut through bloat
elegantly.
Bloat and application quarantine (each app being a world unto itself) seems to me the
major issues before the industry. REBOL's business future, and langauge future seems
bound into one.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
--- Message Received ---
From: Carl Read <carl-cybercraft.co.nz>
To: rebolist-rebol.com
Reply-To: rebolist-rebol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:53:06 +1200
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Rebol SDK vs Command
On Friday, 14-September-2007 at 12:01:28 Gregg Irwin wrote,
>I'm not sure what products are what anymore,
Which succinctly sums up RT's problems as a 'business'. It doesn't open-source, so REBOL
can't become a popular language, and it doesn't do the business basics to make it succeed
as closed-source software.
-- Carl Read.
[6/30] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 15-Sep-2007 17:21
On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 11:06:08 greg.schofield wrote,
>The thrid option, is to make REBOL core source available, on an as is bas
>is - a licensing agreement (how the hell it would be enforced I don't kno
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>mpatible REBOLs, or REBOL itself bloating because of innovations elsewher
>e with the source code would in my opinion be no good.
But we've already got incompatible REBOLs, a lot of OSs being dropped between 1.2 and
1.3 (of View). This is the 1.2 list...
http://www.rebol.com/view-platforms.shtml
and this the 1.3: http://www.rebol.net/builds/
And when REBOL 3's released, we'll have another level of incompatibility.
Here's the March 2006 discussion from this list about the announcement of REBOL 3...
http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/ml-display-thread.r?m=rmlYFBC
I stick my oar in at post 13, pointing out that there's a heap of unfinished REBOL-related
stuff around as it is. ('The Mac View version is still "pending" on their website, though
in alpha or beta if you look deeply. And REBOL Services? It's still in alpha or beta
too I believe, as is Rebcode. And the REBOL plugin is still only on IE.')
I think there's been a Linux version of the plugin released since then, though I don't
know the status of Services or Rebcode.
And note the "My personal target date is to have alpha releases available in the late
April time frame, with beta by June." here...
http://web.archive.org/web/20060422002100/http://www.rebol.com/notes/rebol3roadmap.html#section-5
That was April/June 2006. See why I'm not too optimistic about REBOL becoming a success
any time soon? I love the language to bits, but its marketing and direction is all over
the place.
-- Carl Read.
[7/30] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 15-Sep-2007 10:44
Carl Read napsal(a):
> On Friday, 14-September-2007 at 12:01:28 Gregg Irwin wrote,
>
>> I'm not sure what products are what anymore,
>>
>
> Which succinctly sums up RT's problems as a 'business'. It doesn't open-source, so
REBOL can't become a popular language, and it doesn't do the business basics to make
it succeed as closed-source software.
>
> -- Carl Read.
>
Carl,
I just noticed some of your frustration, also in different thread. But -
I don't want to listen to open-source = success crap, really :-) RT's
situation has NOTHING to do with REBOL being oper-source or not. I will
sum situation as follows:
- I hate when RT did absolutly unrealistic news on their site - once it
was about components (just to stop #R clone effort), another with "next
month alpha R3", which was more than one year ago. I really don't
understand, how so good developer as Carl could release such an insane
info ...
- RT applied closed development, because architecture of R2 did not
allow otherwise
- Communication of RT, mainly in 2000 - 2003 was terrible. It was much
improved with Carl's blogs
- The situation with R3 should now be completly different. Already in
the design process, there were ppl like Gabriele, Ladislav, Cyphre
involved. R3 rebol is just a .dll, which is platform agnostic, so all is
needed (in theory) is just to recompile, the rest is open sourced. I
think that that factor alone will not bring new ppl onboard, maybe a
few. And as for me - I have absolutly no respect for ppl, which will
bitch about R3 not being "fully" open sourced. I have friend, who is
with Python, because it is open source, yet he never looked into its
sources. OS seems to be a cult. I believe RT will accept help of those,
who really want to help. This hybrid model should nicely work imo.
- In addition to the above - Geomol already showed interest in trying to
port to OS-X, and Carl agreed. It is already happening. Also some
porting docs started to beeing produced
- R3 vs R2 and incompatibilities. I say - forget R2, old story. I always
objected, when ppl on altme wanted R2 to spend some time backporting to
R2. You can still use R2, and some bugs might be fixed. But with so
small community, I thing that further development of R2 is total waste
of time, which prevents R3 from being finished. Unfortunately changes in
R3 kernels are so big, that backporting is not possible in most cases.
- As for R3 becoming public - I believe that situation is now more
realistic, and that we can prevent unrealistic claims. Carl allowed us
to inform rest of the community about the project status. My take is,
that it will last some 2 - 3 months, before R3 is as usable, as R2. VID
is not finished, nor are things as network protocols. Only http right
now, although async, and 1.1 version. Currently we are investigating
possibility of a) other ppl to help b) internal release to altme rebol3
world or ml release.
- as for marketing, I want to volunteer to help RT to redo their site.
There is very many areas to help. If you are interested, just express
your wish. I believe that in few months we will all have enough
oportunity to help. Porting, docs, websites, extensions, etc.
Cheers,
-pekr-
[8/30] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 15-Sep-2007 23:02
On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 10:44:03 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>- R3 vs R2 and incompatibilities. I say - forget R2, old story.
A lot aren't going to. Dropping support for your older tech is a sure way to lose customers.
>- as for marketing, I want to volunteer to help RT to redo their site.
>There is very many areas to help. If you are interested, just express
>your wish. I believe that in few months we will all have enough
>oportunity to help. Porting, docs, websites, extensions, etc.
No time to help these days - unless by writing extensions.
I DO hope R3 lives up to the hype, but I fear it won't be really usable for another couple
of years at the earliest.
-- Carl Read.
[9/30] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 15-Sep-2007 14:00
Carl Read napsal(a):
> On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 10:44:03 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>
>> - R3 vs R2 and incompatibilities. I say - forget R2, old story.
>>
>
> A lot aren't going to. Dropping support for your older tech is a sure way to lose customers.
>
I think that what you mention is just a theory. What RT's "customers"
are we talking about? What "support" are we talking about here?
Marketing/customer relations wise, RT was imo a bad company in the past.
Lot's of missed oportunities imo. So - from that perspective, R3 model
is very right and it should help to spread REBOL, because community of
users and customers might be involved. Besided that - who said support
for R2 is dropped? I just say that we should not expect some real
development to happen for R2. It even does NOT make any sense. R3 is
still REBOL, just based upon much better technological foundation, R2's
model can't be easily extended ....
> No time to help these days - unless by writing extensions.
>
you see? And that is so with most of us, REBOL supporters - we have our
main jobs. OTOH as for me, I don't want ppl to join REBOL just because
it is, or is not open-source. I hope ppl will see that REBOL can be a
good tool too ...
> I DO hope R3 lives up to the hype, but I fear it won't be really usable for another
couple of years at the earliest.
>
And why do you think so? R2 happened in a half a year after R1 "fiasco".
R3 can run scripts already, VID can be used with some limits. It is
months, surely not years. For R3 to live fully to its fully open model,
maybe one year, but as for direct R2 comparison, we will be there very
soon ...
Petr
[10/30] from: carl:cybercraft at: 16-Sep-2007 0:21
On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 14:00:08 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>OTOH as for me, I don't want ppl to join REBOL just because
>it is, or is not open-source. I hope ppl will see that REBOL can be a
>good tool too ...
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.
[11/30] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 15-Sep-2007 14:29
Carl Read napsal(a):
> On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 14:00:08 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>> OTOH as for me, I don't want ppl to join REBOL just because
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> 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. 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? 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?
Petr
[12/30] from: edoconnor::gmail::com at: 15-Sep-2007 11:37
Language/technology success is a product of getting an impossible
number of small details right, plus some luck-- there are no "silver
bullets". As such, I don't think that merely opening the source code
will change the prospects for REBOL.
Although a large % of the programming world has never heard of REBOL,
a significant % of programmers who enjoy learning new, dynamic
languages already have-- and most of them have already formed their
opinions of REBOL. R3 not only faces the basic challenge of winning
acceptance among developers, it has historical negative baggage to
overcome-- sins of the past.
Since moving to fully open source would not necessarily change
prospects for REBOL, I don't think you'd see a lot of people forking
it and creating competing versions. Most folks want a distribution
they can trust, and today that authority belongs to Carl. Offshoots
are the kind of thing that happens to popular languages, and frankly,
I wouldn't count it as negative even in those cases. You want parallel
processing in Ruby? You want .NET support in Python? If so, you look
into the alternative distro's of those languages, and you're probably
overjoyed that the language has a community so deep that these options
exist.
For some reason, one often hears "it's not fully open source" as a
reason for not adopting REBOL (or some other language). It would be
nice to remove that red-herring from the list of grievances, but as I
stated, I doubt that this change would make a big difference at this
point. With regard to "open source", I think most developers want
something completely open with no fine print of any kind. I'd like to
see REBOL take that plunge, but Carl is the owner of REBOL and I
respect his decisions. If there's something that I need that I'm not
getting from REBOL's new partial-open source model, or if the
licensing issues are too onerous, there are plenty of other
serviceable programming languages to fill the need.
Ed
[13/30] from: chd:1staccess:ca at: 15-Sep-2007 12:15
>>I think most developers want
something completely open with no fine print of any kind. I'd like to
see REBOL take that plunge, but Carl is the owner of REBOL and I
respect his decisions.
I agree, Carl should also get paid for his work in some way. I find
open source a very strange phenomena that I have never got a handle
on. Apple took open source UNIX and built an excellent OS on it,
which has paid them back many times over. But this type of success is
few and far between.
Not certain REBOL can divest itself of the previous baggage either.
It may need a complete re-invention at least in the marketing end.
Time will tell...
~chris
[14/30] from: edoconnor::gmail::com at: 15-Sep-2007 14:59
In order to get paid for his work, REBOL will need to achieve a
measure of popularity. But what is a key obstacle to popularity?
Source which isn't fully open.
Here's the unpleasant reality: There isn't any money to be made from
programming languages. The market is saturated with lots of free ones,
and individual consumers (developers) expect them to be free. The
small business market, startups, academia and forward-thinking
mega-corps (all 5 or 6 of them) also look to free programming tools.
What's left? The slow moving, middle-of-the-heard corporations, which
are the most conservative of all. They will only purchase the big
brand names (MS, IBM, Sun, Oracle, Adobe); they will never build
software in a little-known language unless it is bought by one of the
big brands.
There are a few exceptions to the above. There are some very small
niche players, such as TCX (the MySQL folks), Kx Systems (the makers
of kdb+), the Runtime Revolution people, and others. These companies
survive by selling IDEs, compilers, and other add-ons, but very few
companies today survive by selling core language/scripting technology.
20 years ago the market allowed that business model, but not today.
So with regard to open source and worrying about forks, offshoots and
competing versions, I say: Don't focus on problems you don't have yet.
Take a giant risk and trust developers to embrace your language on
their own terms. Once you've established that you're not out to turn
them into sharecroppers, they might be willing to take a look at the
true merits of the language and invest some time into using,
evangelizing and enhancing it. At that point RT may still be
cash-poor, but at least there may be a loyal community based upon
trust and DIY work ethic, with good prospects for an emerging market.
Who knows, with a little luck, in a few years RT could fork their
business model and deploy a modest commercial strategy along the lines
of TCX or Zend.
Ed
On 9/15/07, Chris Dwyer wrote:
[15/30] 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>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.
[16/30] from: santilli::gabriele::gmail::com at: 16-Sep-2007 0:46
2007/9/15, Ed O'Connor <edoconnor-gmail.com>:
> Here's the unpleasant reality: There isn't any money to be made from
> programming languages. The market is saturated with lots of free ones,
Carl knows this very well (maybe he shouldn't have tried from the
beginning, but, the past is the past). RT is not going to make money
from R3, the language. There are other plans.
Carl Read:
> From RT's POV, staying proprietary might look the easiest way to make money from REBOL,
That's not the reason why R3's core is not open source.
Regards,
Gabriele.
[17/30] from: carl:cybercraft at: 16-Sep-2007 11:58
On Sunday, 16-September-2007 at 0:46:19 Gabriele Santilli wrote,
>Carl Read:
>
>> From RT's POV, staying proprietary might look the easiest way to make money
>>from REBOL,
>
>That's not the reason why R3's core is not open source.
And the reason is? I can think of others, such as it containing licensed code from sources
other than RT, or that RT has made promises to customers that they wouldn't open-source
it. Or that they're just stubborn on this point. But you didn't say why, so I guess
you're not allowed to. Thus we waste time guessing...
-- Carl Read.
[18/30] from: edoconnor::gmail::com at: 15-Sep-2007 22:36
> Carl knows this very well (maybe he shouldn't have tried from the
> beginning, but, the past is the past). RT is not going to make money
> from R3, the language. There are other plans.
Thanks for the reply Gabriele.
I don't blame Carl for building a company around a proprietary
scripting language. On the contrary, back then I encouraged it. Back
in the 1990's, quite a few companies did this, especially during the
early years of the web. A fair number were successful. Unfortunately,
the window of opportunity closed quickly, and, among other things, RT
was a victim of bad timing.
Personally I am not concerned about Rebol's future. I would like to
see Rebol achieve success on whatever level Carl and team define. For
my individual needs, I already deem it a success.
Thanks for your many contributions to Rebol and your work on R3. Good
luck with the plans. We'll all be keen to see what lies ahead.
Ed
[19/30] from: henrik::webz::dk at: 16-Sep-2007 17:57
On 16/09/2007, at 1.58, Carl Read wrote:
> On Sunday, 16-September-2007 at 0:46:19 Gabriele Santilli wrote,
>> Carl Read:
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> they're just stubborn on this point. But you didn't say why, so I
> guess you're not allowed to. Thus we waste time guessing...
To keep others from meddling with the language. It's that simple. And
yes, if it were opened, people WILL meddle with it in directions that
could quickly move it into a corner, feature wise, so you can't do
this or that with it. You can't avoid forking or design by committee
as seen in so many open source programming languages. To be frank,
how many coders out there can outsmart Carl Sassenrath and code a
better REBOL 3?
If people say, they won't use REBOL, because it's not open source,
then they will likely not spend time on it anyway in order to
understand the way the language is designed, and then just use it as
a traditional language; For them, REBOL gives no added value and they
might as well turn to Ruby or Python. I've had this conversation with
some open source enthusiasts, and it goes exactly like that. They
will not accept it as anything but a Ruby/Python alternative and
completely ignore the features that make REBOL unique and powerful,
not as a language, but as a platform. Same reason, why I was asked
why we didn't use GTK+ for the UI rather than write our own VID3.
It would be nice if the open source crowd (particularly the GPL
crowd) were a potential audience, but they can't be that, unless they
are willing to go truly in depth with the language and try to
understand it.
The commercial opportunities for RT would likely be in products like
IOS, not the language itself. I don't know the plans, but I hope and
expect that R3 will be much less costly than R2, perhaps completely
free.
And let me tell you this:
R3 builds on the 7-8 years of experience of R2. I've used the R3
alpha since early July, and one of the big differences here between
R2 and R3 is that almost anywhere in R2, where you have a limitation
or a design flaw, be it ports, async, tasks, file management, error
handling, graphics, sound or hardware, those flaws are simply gone in
R3 or will disappear over the course of alpha and beta development.
Not many shortcuts have been taken. Redesigning the graphics system
has made it a breeze to use along with VID3, where you in the old VID
constantly bump into limitations and bugs and have to spend hours and
hours of hacking to achieve a certain functionality, if it's possible
at all to do, due to the hardwired nature of the event and graphics
system in R2.
We won't get everything with 3.0, but be sure that the limitations
are far fewer than with R2.
This opens a subject of post-beta development that leaves the
argument of open sourcing the core language in the dust: The question
of how fast the peripheral capabilities of R3 can be developed.
Porting to other OS'es, building drivers, the Wildman project,
additional documentation and cookbooks.
This is almost only a question of how many smart people you can find
and put on these parallel, almost autonomous projects. The pace of
integrating R3 into your environment will no longer be decided by RT,
but by you. There is going to be a _lot_ of work to do: Easily
everyone on this list can have a job to do, and the members of the
core R3 team already have their hands full enough that there is going
to be need for extra help soon.
I'm betting personally that with around 50 people, we can support and
maintain the 40 advertised platforms by the end of 2008, plus have
better integration into each system, and all of them will have proper
documentation. This leaves RT to focus on the core language and their
commercial product endeavours.
--
Regards,
Henrik Mikael Kristensen
[20/30] from: carl:cybercraft at: 17-Sep-2007 21:54
On Sunday, 16-September-2007 at 17:57:45 Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote,
>On 16/09/2007, at 1.58, Carl Read wrote:
>>
<<quoted lines omitted: 20>>
>how many coders out there can outsmart Carl Sassenrath and code a
>better REBOL 3?
Assuming there's not many, why is he worried?
So REBOL might fork, but how will that stop RT taking REBOL in the direction they want
it to go? And if RT's version is better, won't it be the version that attracts the most
users?
And it's already forked - R2/R3...
>I'm betting personally that with around 50 people, we can support and
>maintain the 40 advertised platforms by the end of 2008, plus have
>better integration into each system, and all of them will have proper
>documentation.
But there's the problem. You're wanting the open-source ethos to support and maintain
what's at core a closed-source product.
-- Carl Read.
[21/30] from: santilli:gabriele:g:mail at: 17-Sep-2007 12:08
2007/9/17, Carl Read <carl-cybercraft.co.nz>:
> Assuming there's not many, why is he worried?
If you don't get any contributions, then making it OS is a waste of
time for Carl, and a problem from the point of view of investors and
other partners etc. (Well, that's debatable in principle, but it is a
fact at this point.) So in the end, there is not much advantage for
the community (maybe for small bug fixes, but that would not really
scale up, and Carl would still need to check or do all the fixes), and
there are only disadvantages for RT.
In particular, to protect RT, one would not be able to use something
like BSD; the only OS license that i think would protect RT adequately
would be the GPL, but half of the world (including Carl) hate it, so
it's a no go. In the end, there is really no choice.
Regards,
Gabriele.
[22/30] from: henrik:webz:dk at: 17-Sep-2007 16:37
On 17/09/2007, at 11.54, Carl Read wrote:
> So REBOL might fork, but how will that stop RT taking REBOL in the
> direction they want it to go?
It will take away potential developers from working on R3. As said in
my previous mail, there will be a need for a lot of developers once
R3 goes final, so the open source question will have much less
importance than the amount of man and brain power we can find.
> And if RT's version is better, won't it be the version that
> attracts the most users?
How would you know that RT's version is better than a competing
version? Which Java is best? MS Java or Sun Java or another
implementation? Freedom of choice is good only up to the point where
it just confuses you. Besides, having different implementations just
makes REBOL much harder to code and test for. Ever tried building a
complex webpage for multiple browsers? It's a nightmare. Having a
single, clear voice is the big advantage of REBOL.
> And it's already forked - R2/R3...
R2 is not forked. It's obsoleted. R3 is not in competition with R2.
--
Regards,
Henrik Mikael Kristensen
[23/30] from: carl:cybercraft at: 18-Sep-2007 8:06
On Monday, 17-September-2007 at 16:37:19 Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote,
>On 17/09/2007, at 11.54, Carl Read wrote:
>> So REBOL might fork, but how will that stop RT taking REBOL in the
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>R3 goes final, so the open source question will have much less
>importance than the amount of man and brain power we can find.
And how will you attract 'a lot of developers' without it being open-source? I just
see a huge disconnect with this POV. (And yeah, I consider 50 developers a lot.)
-- Carl Read.
[24/30] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 17-Sep-2007 19:39
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:59:04 +0200, Ed O'Connor <edoconnor-gmail.com>
wrote:
> In order to get paid for his work, REBOL will need to achieve a
> measure of popularity. But what is a key obstacle to popularity?
> Source which isn't fully open.
No, it's ignorance and demagogues that don't understand how business works.
But anyway, let them be. For me the best argument is:
I did this app with 2,5 FTEs in 6 month. My competitor did an equivalent
application with 2 developers in 5 years. You can expect us to keep that
pace in the future. We are your partner: fast, lean and innovative.
If others switch, ok good, if not, they might learn it the hard way. Of
course not all applications will be done in Rebol but the ones that are
just need to be the rights ones to show companies what is possible. And
I'm sure, they are adapting it very fast than. Robert
[25/30] from: edoconnor::gmail at: 17-Sep-2007 11:59
Open source Rebol is an interesting discussion, and one which can
generate a lot of opinions, but I think it's endlessly moot until Carl
S. decides he wants to take Rebol in that direction. I'm willing to
bet he's looked at this issue from many conceivable angles and decided
to go with a hybrid model. Great! Hopefully that will generate some
renewed developer interest in R3.
So, setting aside the fact that this matter is out of our hands...
I think the main benefit of FOSS is that the developer receives a
degree of protection from of a corporate vendor. Software developers
do not want an external entity automatically inserted into their
livelihood as co-partner and co-captain of their destiny. It would be
irrational to accept such an arrangement when there are dozens of
highly capable languages with completely open or very liberal
licenses. (Would RT use a closed, proprietary language to code R3? No
way!!)
With regard to the confusion of multiple R3s in the marketplace, I
expect any reasonable license to dictate that the fork/offshoot cannot
be named Rebol, R3 or any other trademark/servicemark/copyright of RT.
For example, if I create my own .exe using the SDK, I cannot legally
publish it on Tucows.com listed as Rebol/Turbo.
In my opinion, there is hardly a more effective way to limit the
number of potential developers than to keep the foundation of R3
closed. It simply makes the R3 proposition a non-starter for much of
the developer community RT hopes to attract. I would like to see R3
gain some developer cred, so I sure hope I'm mistaken about all of
this.
Ed
[26/30] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 18-Sep-2007 6:57
Carl Read napsal(a):
> On Monday, 17-September-2007 at 16:37:19 Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote,
>> On 17/09/2007, at 11.54, Carl Read wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
>>
> And how will you attract 'a lot of developers' without it being open-source? I just
see a huge disconnect with this POV. (And yeah, I consider 50 developers a lot.)
I don't want to attract anyone thinking open-source is holy-grail of
computing, perioed. If someone is so dumb, let him be so dumb. Easy as
that. This POV is COMPLETLY out of reality, see my other answer to Ed
O'Conor ...
-pekr-
[27/30] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 18-Sep-2007 7:13
Hi Ed,
your answers were one of the best so far, in regards to the topic. You
seem to have good knowledge of how marketing work ...
> I think the main benefit of FOSS is that the developer receives a
> degree of protection from of a corporate vendor. Software developers
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> licenses. (Would RT use a closed, proprietary language to code R3? No
> way!!)
But this one, I am not sure is accurate :-) Why would RT not use e.g. MS
Developer Studio to code REBOL? I know, they can always get free C
compiler, but as for low level, the story is different. I work for large
company, worked for even larger in the past. Those measures simply DON'T
fit! Do you want to know opinion of most CIO's on open-source here? They
really don't care! That one is for Carl Read too - CIOs DON'T care. They
are not stupid. You don't buy only product, but also support. Do you
know the price of 1 man-day of e.g. SAP or IBM consultant? You would buy
5x REBOL/Command SDK for that price. In the situation, when you don't
want to extend your team, you have to choose technology, where you can
take a phone, and have a consultant working for you in few day.
Don't get me wrong, as I said, I can understand open-source advantages,
but I can also imagine open-source geek coding tonnes of apps in php,
out of order, non documented, and once I need to replace the guy, I am
screwed, because mostly those open-source geeks want to do everything
their way
, not respecting higher level integration opinions. And
believe me - If I should allow my guys to use PHP, I would do it from
the same perspective, as introducing JAVA, REBOL, anything else. And
believe me - open-source nature would be the least important point to
consider. Do I get the support or not? This community is VERY helpful. I
have been on ml of several other open-source products, yet I got worse
support than with REBOL. Now what is that?
As for RT going down. It was already said, that source code is put into
Escrow - if RT goes down, it gets released. Besides that - most of R3 IS
open-sourced. RT keeps platform agnostic interpreter/language code. Do
those open-source proponents complain about MS non releasing source of
Windows? REBOL calls tonnes of platform functions, to which there is no
code available, yet they don't complain.
Simply put - I don't believe, that fully open-sourcing REBOL would help
much nowadays. There are other factors. REBOL had its window of
oportunity, which was missed. We have to fight the position hard once
again. And I believe being open-source or not does not really help. I
always thought I like REBOL because of its capabilities. I really
wonder, how can anyone join the community just because something is
open-sourced? That person surely will not understand advantages of REBOL
aproach, beause if that person would understand it, he/she would like to
use the technology anyway ...
Petr
[28/30] from: henrik:webz:dk at: 18-Sep-2007 8:58
On 17/09/2007, at 22.06, Carl Read wrote:
> On Monday, 17-September-2007 at 16:37:19 Henrik Mikael Kristensen
> wrote,
<<quoted lines omitted: 10>>
> And how will you attract 'a lot of developers' without it being
> open-source?
Because, if you are really interested in REBOL and care for it's
purity, you will not want the core (You say "it", as if the whole of
R3 is closed. It's not, of course.) to be open source. You will want
the core to be pure, clean, simple and unified. Are you handed a
paintbrush when you go down to the art gallery to fix up other
people's paintings? I always thought Mona Lisa's nose should have
been more red, but do other people agree? I hope you see the point.
The DLL is RT's Mona Lisa.
I think you want the DLL to be open source, because you are afraid that:
1. RT will go belly up the day after final 3.0 is released.
2. RT does not communicate development statuses to the people, so you
can't really know what's going on in development.
3. Carl Sassenrath decides to focus on making wine or go hiking in
the hills and lets bugs be unfixed, no matter how much we yell and
shout.
4. Evil people use closed source and RT will fill the 250 kb DLL with
spyware and nasty viruses. Now you can't truly know that, can
you? :-) R3 might even have banner ads in the console. That's
technically possible. Beware!
5. People will see REBOL as a simple programming language and
therefore a competitor to various open source languages and therefore
can't compete.
6. Carl Sassenrath is not a good a coder, so he doesn't want sources
to be published, because that would embarrass him.
7. The DLL will somehow be full of security holes.
8. REBOL will in the end only be attractive to weird people, who hate
mainstream stuff. Like us.
9. RT will not implement that one little feature you want so dearly
implemented.
10. R3 will not fix any of the problems R2 has.
Let's use these points as a base for discussion. That's better than
open source is cool
.
> I just see a huge disconnect with this POV.
Making a project fully open source is not the means to attract
developers. I've been there and did my fair share of cheerleading
without success. That's one of my causes for alarm (but not the main
one), when people suggest open sourcing REBOL, because they believe
it will magically cure the popularity problem. Let's see whether QNX
becomes more popular now.
If people will join the project, they will do it, because it's
interesting for them to use the same code on their PC as they do on
their Mac or Linux box or their embedded platform, because of REBOL's
unique opportunities. Not because it's a competitor to Ruby, Python,
PHP and whatever.
> (And yeah, I consider 50 developers a lot.)
50 developers is a small number, considering how much work needs to
be done. The first 15 already have their hands full.
--
Regards,
Henrik Mikael Kristensen
[29/30] from: jblake:arsenaldigital at: 18-Sep-2007 9:38
I've been reading this tread for a while now.
1. Having an app open source does have the affect of getting more things
done in a shorter amount of time by more people, if those people want to
contribute. If they don't, then all you have is another project on
SourceForge.
2. Someone on the thread mentioned the "if you build it they will come"
thingy doesn't work anymore. It depends on what you build. There was a
thread on a "killer app" for Rebol. If an app was built using Rebol, and
it was popular, then the coders/users would immediately look at what it
was written in to see if they could do other apps in it.
I personally use it when I can. Granted I am forced to NOT use it in
some cases due to it not having a "system" command. I actually have this
one process that launches a perl script to connect to oracle, then
launch another perl script (different server) to execute commands
remotely. That script launches Rebol to parse a txt file to load into a
PHP ticketing system. Would I have wanted to just use Rebol everywhere?
You bet. But I cant just go in and replace all perl/php scripts with
Rebol. I have to gradually see what it can do and use it where I can. If
the SOA part was not "beta", then I'd put in on the servers for use.
I did use it to create a utility to auto generate tickets using a
spreadsheet. I developed it on Linux and copied it to Windoze and worked
like a champ. I did it within 2 days. Everyone immediately started
asking what it was written in. The Java developers prob would have taken
them 1 month to do it then we'd have to deal with Java versions,etc.
John
[30/30] from: edoconnor::gmail at: 18-Sep-2007 13:57
Hi Petr--
Good to see you active in Rebol again. I knew you couldn't stay away :^)
I think we're mostly in agreement here. I do not believe that opening
the source today would make much difference. Perhaps it might have in
1998 when Rebol was new, but as Gabriele says, the past is past.
>> But this one, I am not sure is accurate :-) Why would RT not use e.g. MS
Developer Studio to code REBOL?
My analogy was about RT being willing to write REBOL in a proprietary
language, not about their willingness to use a proprietary IDE or
compiler. Developers are often willing to pay money for tools,
extensions, add-ons and solutions (such as a RAD IDE, component, or a
DBMS). It's the language that most people expect to be free, just like
I don't pay anything to read/write/think/create in English, but I pay
for tools such as pens, paper, phones and computers to store, compose
or transport my words.
>> Do you want to know opinion of most CIO's on open-source here? They
really don't care! That one is for Carl Read too - CIOs DON'T care. They
are not stupid.
In my experience, CIO's tend to be anti-open source. They are business
managers whose job is to contain IT costs while supporting key
business functions with minimal risk. But open-source or not, any
company large enough to have a CIO will endorse only standard
software/platforms/methodologies backed by the corp. giants(i.e.,
someone they can sue if something goes wrong) and offshore vendor
teams.
If RT wants to sell R3 in a B2B model, the dll should remain closed,
and R3 should retain its commercial, proprietary branding. In this
model, R3 should demonstrate clear, quantifiable advantages (either
generally or in a specific, marketable domain), and it should come
with a justifiably expensive price tag (price is associated with
value). Looking back at the past decade of RT and the unique nature of
REBOL, I imagine this approach presented some tough challenges.
If RT wishes to sell R3 in more of a B2C model (i.e., don't sell the
language, focus on selling add-ons, SDKs, Apache mod's, etc.), then
opening the language fully might remove an important barrier to
grass-roots adoption. I'm sure open-source comes with a set of
headaches, but like it or not, conventional perception is that
open-source offers a critical advantage for a language, and
closed-source for an upstart language is a deal-breaker.
I can see a lot of words have been written on this topic, and I think
I've finally said all I can say about it. Personally I'm not
disappointed that the R3 .dll will not be open-source-- that isn't
important to me-- I use Rebol for personal, end-user programming.
Arguing against or in favor of open-source requires an understanding
of RT's business model, which I'm not privy to. Whatever the case, I,
like all of us, hope R3 is a giant success and the start of a great
rebolly future.
Cheers,
Ed
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted