Metacard support

[Richard Gaskin]

Wilhelm Sanke wrote:

> I still tend to see the engine together with the Metacard IDE as a unity
> that deserves the label "Metacard". After all, when you start Metacard,
> that is what is shown by the home stack. The Metacard IDE cannot
> function without the  engine and - lets say - 98% of the basic engine
> was developed for and with the Metacard IDE.
> 
> That the engine is now owned by Runtime Revolution is a legal matter and
> as long as there is no infringement of rights - and I can't see why
> there should be - it doesn't hurt to use "Metacard" for the authoring
> system that includes the Metacard IDE. This would also acknowledge and
> honor the historical context.

In terms of the old engine available at metacard.com, yes.  But you cannot
download a current version of the engine named "MetaCard".  Today, it is
available under the name "Revolution".

To use the current version of the engine with the MC IDE you need to go to
runrev.com and download a package named "Revolution".  You can rename it to
anything you like, but for communicating with the community as a whole it
may be less confusing to just use its current name.

MC's Home stack is part of the IDE, and reflects the IDE's name.  The Home
stack was developed long before the acquisition, and doesn't govern the
product's current name.

I have an old globe showing "Rhodesia" for a nation that in recent years is
best recognized as "Zimbabwe" (it has "Begian Congo" and "Burma" also; it's
pretty outdated). :)

> This is for me however, I repeat, a matter of minor importance.

Agreed. :)


> My idea was, which I have expressed from the very moment when Runrev
> announced their new product and marketing scheme in July, to incorporate
> the Metacard IDE as an alternative part of the Revolution project - with
> labels like "slim" or "power edition" (although I think they would not
> favor the latter) instead of possibly seeing Metacard as an unavoidable
> annoyance.
> That the Metacard IDE is now open source should not prevent them to do so.

On the contrary, the X11 license was chosen with RunRev in mind, to
encourage them to use any and all of the MC IDE without having to think
about the "enforced freedom" aspects of other GPL-compatible licenses.

I think that suggestion is an excellent one.  If they see a need for it I
hope they purue it.

And of course, id anyone wants it they can simply use the MC IDE available
now, with no other action required by anyone.


> And quite a number of the Revolutionaries do not even know that an
> alternative Metacard IDE exists that they could put to good use
> especially when the Rev IDE fails or is less convenient.

At the root of it this seems an issue of subjective preferences:  if you
encounter a bug in Revolution is it more desirable to adopt an entirely
different IDE just to get around that bug?

Or you could flip it around:  if you encounter a bug in the MC IDE, would
you prefer to switch your workflow to the Rev IDE or just see the bug fixed?

While you and I are enamored of MC's simplicity, for others that same
simplicity can be seen as "hellishly spartan" (to use the words of one of my
clients who prefers Rev).

For most of the world, MC is something you might do to get you through the
day while you're waiting for a bug to be fixed in Rev.  Personally I love
it, but my subjective preferences seem different than most in many areas,
not the least of which relates to IDEs. ;)
 
> Here is a quote from the use-revolution list (Nov 21):
> 
>> Because I didn't know it existed! Like (I suspect) the majority of
>> people on this list, I joined the Revolution after RR came out and
>> have never had any contact with MetaCard apart from one glance at a
>> demo years ago.

That sums up what I hear from a lot of folks:  they looked at MC's
Motif-inspired UI and walked away, giving themselves a chance to really get
to know the underlying engine's power only after it was dressed up with a
more conventional (if complex) Rev IDE.

 
> I know about Bugzilla (and Revzilla for that matter), but it still must
> be possible - and is of course natural behavior of list members - to ask
> about presumed bugs, asking if maybe there was just an error in the
> syntax of their scripts or hoping for a workaround others already have
> handy.

Getting a second opinion about script logic is a function of the discussion
list.  Checking the status of known issues is a function of Bugzilla.  Both
seem well covered, no?
 
> However, the questions I asked - and others have asked, you, Richard,
> among them - in the above indicated context do not address bugs, but
> rather *features* scripted with a certain intention by the Runrev team
> that produce difficulties they probably did not envision.

Rev IDE bugs also belong in Bugzilla.  The bug that gave rise to that
discussion has been reported there.

> Your question about the necessity to password protect the Distribution
> Builder was not answered - as were the other questions and suggestions
> that were brought forward more than three weeks ago.
> 
> Maybe you yourself with your question about the encryption of the
> Distribution Builder got a response in the meantime - offlist in the
> circle of initiated  Revolutionaries. But as your question was asked on
> the list, it also deserves a response on the list.
> 
> I know that the reluctance of the RR team to give feedback this time is
> not standard behavior. I have profited from their feedback (and Scott
> Raney's) on - and offlist quite often. And maybe there are urgent
> reasons which at present prevent them to answer right away?
> 
> I hope you can persuade them to resume their standard behavior.

That you see a greater degree of responsiveness as standard is encouraging,
and perhaps aswers itself:  I also suspect the "standard" behavior to remain
standard over the long term, with various peaks and valleys over time.

I don't think it's fair to ascribe a less-than-Raney level of responsivness
to "reluctance".  There may be any number of factors involved, not the least
that they may simply be busy.

As with most user-to-user discussion forums, while it's always appreciated
when Heather, Goeff, Jeanne, Kevin, or others posts there I don't believe
they have an obligation to do so.  Certainly it's in their best interest,
but so are many other activities, and with the type of growth they seem to
be having lately I would expect prioritization is a primary challenge.  To
their credit, more often than not a post requiring a response from the team
will get one.  

My question about the Distro Builder being locked may simply have been
overlooked, and in practical terms it doesn't affect me anyway since I build
in MC.  I haven't bothered to follow up in an email to support for that
reason.

Yes, Scott's responsiveness was very much appreciated.  I've found no other
company in 16 years in the business who can match his performance.  Truly
amazing.

But if you have questions that have been outstanding more than a week, I
don't think RunRev would mind if you sent a follow-up.
 
-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___________________________________________________________
 Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com
 Tel: 323-225-3717                       AIM: FourthWorldInc