[MC_IDE] Quick Poll

[Richard Gaskin]

On 3/30/11 12:52 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:

> Apparently the - somehow privileged - information received from RunRev
> was not comprehensive enough to let Richard and Klaus create a new
> standalone builder at once. Richard needed several contacts with more
> than one person and additionally trial and error processes as he writes.
>
> And we had to wait one and a half year until finally we now got the
> prospect to see this new standalone builder soon.

Blame me for that, not RunRev.  They provided this info long ago, but 
during all this time the number of requests for an updated MC SB here - 
or just about any other enhancement - has been close to zero.  As far as 
I could tell the only folks still using MC was just Ken, Klaus, and I, 
and even after the recent round of discussions we still see only about a 
dozen people using it.  So with all the client work I've had keeping me 
busy and no evident use of MC here, my time has been spent accordingly.

Oliver provided the info we asked for almost as soon as we asked for it. 
  I can't expect any better than that.

Any delays in getting a working SB to you fall on me, not RunRev. 
They've done their part, promptly and helpfully.

Now that we see some activity here I'm happy to get back to it, but 
let's please remember that this is a community-driven process in which 
MC enhancements come at the expense of paying work.  Klaus has done a 
wonderful job adding the stuff he has, and I appreciate Ken taking the 
lead this time around.  But all that work is donated, paid for by their 
client work, and for the benefit of a notably small and ever-smaller MC 
user base.

So I apologize for taking the nearly complete inactivity on this list at 
face value, and will do my best to make this latest contribution as 
quickly as time permits.  But please, let's keep RunRev out of it, at 
least as far as blame-hunting goes.


> While overall it could be stated that Revolution/Livecode has indeed
> improved considerably over time, there are still features that are not
> up to par or have even deteriorated, among them the support for the MC
> IDE.

MC is an open source project outside of RunRev's role.  It's not theirs 
to maintain, it's ours.

What would you like to contribute?


> At that time - 2004 - RunRev had also given up its principle to allow
> the possibility of total customization of the Rev IDE (a principle
> introduced and observed by Scott Raney for Metacard) by encrypting the
> standalone builder.

Right, but as I noted earlier they've since fixed this by moving the 
build process into the engine.

If sufficiently motivated I suppose one could make a case that this move 
to engine-based building is also somehow an anti-MC plot from RunRev - 
but what would be the motivation?

Trust me, they have bigger fish to fry than picking on us.

I've seen nothing worse than disinterest from RunRev with regard to MC, 
and often some very direct support of our effort even though it has 
almost nothing to do with their business plan.  Never have I seen any 
indication of any attempt to thwart MC.


> I have never fully understood and accepted the protection of the Rev
> Standalone Builder. I know they give reasons pertaining to licensing
> procedures, and they want to prevent that someone circumvents the
> embedded licensing procedures and builds his own product and then
> competes with Revolution, but I believe these fears are unfounded, as
> there are surely means to guarantee a proper licensing process without
> necessarily encrypting the standalone builder.

It's happened once before, with SuperCard and Digital Chisel.  I can't 
blame RunRev for not wanting to be the second example.


> And, would it be possible to get access to the privileged information
> Richard and Klaus received for creating the MC standalone builder? I
> would really like to know - and I think others, too - how the standalone
> file is being attached to a stack. And I assure sincerely that I am not
> intending to produce a competing product.

Offhand I don't think that would be a problem, but I'm not Kevin so I 
should probably run the request by him first.

He'll probably ask what the purpose is, esp. given that an updated SB 
for MC is already well underway.  What should I tell him?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv