tbrownell@shaw.ca
[1/14] from: scot:ski2die at: 18-Feb-2002 10:26
Hi,
Thought I'd respond off list for this.
I've been lurking for a couple months becuase I'm doing some research on
whether or not Rebol can be a viable option in a project I'm involved with.
I've asked a few questions on the list as well, but from what I can see,
Rebol programmers aren't interested (in general) in revenue generating
projects but rather new ways to add 1 +2.
Unfortunately, the Rebol company doesn't really care about Rebol advancing
in the Internet area either- they won't even consider creating a browser
plugin and I've been told several different times about this stance. I
imagine they are more thoughtful about getting Rebol into cell phones and
other hand held devices.
It's rather unfortunate, really. The EULA for Rebol is kind of restrictive,
as well.
I currently develop with the MIVA cgi scripting language (miva.com) which is
nice, but of course not "executable" like Rebol, but Miva corp is all about
revenue from the Internet and all of the developers who work with it have
been reaping the benefits.
Bottom line is that I dont think Rebol programmers or Rebol Corp is all that
interested in really making this language the forefront of Internet
development technology, which is of course the way of the future. This is
so apparent that I am considering putting my group's project on hold until
Flash comes out with their executable language.
Anyhow, I wanted to let you know a bystander's thoughts on this.
Regards,
Scot Ranney
[2/14] from: scot:ski2die at: 18-Feb-2002 11:47
Folks, sorry for this post. It was meant for someone off the list and I made
a mistake with sending the message.
[3/14] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 18-Feb-2002 12:14
Oops! Dont worry, RT has taken harsher criticism on the list, though that 1 + 2
thing hits pretty deep. 8 )
BTW, RT is aware of some of the issues for us shoestring shareware developers,
and is considering alternatives for us. I do sympathize with many of your
points. RT's seems to have been solely oriented towards selling IOS to
companies since the .com crash, and has left the potential shareware developers
trying to justify /Alliance. I believe all that will be addressed soon.
However, I do think it is important to put into perspective the fact that the RT
team is 5 people, two or three developers. I would guess that they have taken a
bet the farm
on IOS strategy, so they damn well better finish that first,
before they can spend much resources on any other ventures, which often are
costly either to market or develop.
RT and the list thrives on such critiszm, feel free to keep posting it!
--Ryan
>> complement subtract complement 1 2
== 3
[4/14] from: ptretter:charter at: 18-Feb-2002 16:24
Well, I must say I have been using REBOL for some time now and very amazed
at its power and potential. I was a little taken back by the Royalty
program I was considering. Money really wasn't this issue, as much as
verification. I would rather just buy licenses as sales dictate instead of
opening up my financials for RT to view. I think RT is probably busy with
alot of work. After all this is their "work" and they have been very
generous to alot of us with the free distributions of /core and /view. I,
like others, believe sound should be included part of /core product but in
time I think RT will see the same. I also believe that RT will be much more
willing to distribute or bundle these components when they start getting the
sales. I have purchased commercial license for /View/Pro and like it alot.
RT, if your listening, open up that Alliance program with the option to buy
individual licensing as sales dictate or blocks of licenses for our
distribution without the need for us to whip out our GL's.
Paul Tretter
[5/14] from: carl:cybercraft at: 19-Feb-2002 12:37
On 19-Feb-02, Scot wrote:
> Folks, sorry for this post. It was meant for someone off the list
> and I made a mistake with sending the message.
It's what's known as a Freudian Post. (:
--
Carl Read
[6/14] from: jason::cunliffe::verizon::net at: 18-Feb-2002 16:18
Scot
<[scot--ski2die--com]> wrote:
> Folks, sorry for this post. It was meant for someone off the list and I
made
> a mistake with sending the message.
..oh yes its very embarassing when that happens.
I'm glad it did though - an interesting post which raises some crucial
points.
thanks anyway
./Jason
[7/14] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 19-Feb-2002 1:57
Carl Read wrote:
>On 19-Feb-02, Scot wrote:
>
>>Folks, sorry for this post. It was meant for someone off the list
>>and I made a mistake with sending the message.
>>
>
>It's what's known as a Freudian Post. (:
>
And after all - why to hide behind the words? You have some pretty valid
points, especially those of RTs image to Rebol community. They are so
concentrated upon IOS, that they left community with nearly one year
without technology update. But hopefully, - this will change soon ...
-pekr-
[8/14] from: tbrownell:shaw:ca at: 18-Feb-2002 17:10
What's more embarassing is when one's e-mail address becomes a thread
subject.
Hope those spam filters are kicking in.
TB
[9/14] from: tomc:darkwing:uoregon at: 18-Feb-2002 23:46
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Scot wrote:
> Hi,
> Thought I'd respond off list for this.
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> Rebol programmers aren't interested (in general) in revenue generating
> projects but rather new ways to add 1 +2.
shouldn't that be 1 + 2
[10/14] from: chalz:earthlink at: 19-Feb-2002 1:16
If anyone's read Neal Stephenson's hefty volume, "Cryptonomicon", it
contains a rather close semblence to what's going on here. Essentially, a
small company which has some lofty goal, but before it can get to the really
fun stuff, they have to come up with killer apps to give them the extra seed
money. No venture capitalist puts money into a pure research group. Who
knows what the ultimate goals for CarlS et al are. But the fact of the
matter is, they need money. They need to eat, pay bills, etc. The hope for
many of us should be that IOS takes off and becomes a grand success. Then,
additional people can be hired to take on various other jobs, so the
developers can stick just to developing, and not having to manage
departmental budgets, for instance. And, once the main product has enough
momentum, you can shrug off the patching and updating work to interns, while
your big brains get to work on the good stuff. Then we can see leaps and
bounds in the fundamentals of REBOL, and further support for us moochers
(I'm a hobbyist, so it's not worth it, to me, to purchase the full-on
product, not at current rates), so we can continue to spread the plague, so
to speak. If more people use free versions of REBOL, and it's good, very
very good, more people will be likely to want to procure the high-end stuff
to support REBOL development LANs and servers in general, to take advantage
of this.
Hmm... I'm fantasizing again. I'm stopping now.
--Charles
[11/14] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 18-Feb-2002 21:05
Hmmmm....
Who was it that defined "Freudian slip" as being when
"you say one thing, but mean your mother"
?
;-)
Carl Read wrote:
> On 19-Feb-02, Scot wrote:
>
> > Folks, sorry for this post. It was meant for someone off the list
> > and I made a mistake with sending the message.
>
> It's what's known as a Freudian Post. (:
>
--
; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]}
REBOL []
# despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"]
; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"}
print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;
[12/14] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 19-Feb-2002 21:07
Email addresses
On 19-Feb-02, Terry Brownell wrote:
> What's more embarassing is when one's e-mail address becomes a
> thread subject.
Yes, not too good, and on a related note, I'd twigged recently that
while the escribe archives of this list don't display the email
address of the poster, email addresses within the body of the email
do appear. See...
http://www.escribe.com/internet/rebol/index.html
So out of respect it might be a good idea to ensure our mailers are
not adding email addresses unnecessarily to the body of our messages
when we hit Reply.
> Hope those spam filters are kicking in.
> TB
--
Carl Read
[13/14] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 18-Feb-2002 23:40
Re: tbrownell@shaw.ca
> "you say one thing, but mean your mother"
>
> ?
>
> ;-)
LOL++ )))
./Jason
[14/14] from: chalz:earthlink at: 19-Feb-2002 23:18
Frasier quoting a joke he gave to a conference of psychologists at a ski
resort:
I tell you, looking out on the slopes this afternoon, I'd never seen so
many Freudians slip!
<rimshot>
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted