How Else to Interact with Browser (was Re:RevolutionWebBrowserPlugin)
luis at anachreon.co.uk
Tue Nov 7 04:57:27 EST 2006
Andre Garzia wrote:
> I think you're being kinda naive, first there's no linux company making
> big bucks by distributing free linux, if you're talking about Red Hat
> and friends, they are selling premium support at a very company-wise
> rate, and thats how they make money. They are selling service. That does
> not fit a programming language company. People here keep telling RunRev
> to go open source and stuff, how is RunRev as an open source company
> will provide money for Kevin and the others to make a living?
Whatever business model they choose would be based on whatever business
requirements they decide to follow, whether that is open source or not,
and that would need to factor in information which we as users are not
privy to (nor do we need to know either).
Personally, I don't think RunRev needs to go open source, I think it
needs to be more 'open'.
The externals programming is an example where this would be of great
benefit to the community.
> I deeply agree with you that we need a better foreign interface kit so
> that interfacing with existing technology such as opengl can be easily
> (but laboriously) done by a skilled person, the current external
> architecture is simply not good enough for the developer. We're waiting
> for many bug fixes, yes, but RunRev is not stalled, they are fixing
> bugs, they are not fixing them in a rate we like, but they will never be
> able to fix them in a rate that pleases us, we'll always want it faster.
Having paid for the product entitles us to expect full functionality:
When this is not so we are perfectly within our rights to complain 'till
we're blue in the face.
If the car you bought veers to the left but can be fixed by keeping the
drivers door fully open: Do you carry on driving with a workaround (oh,
I dunno, elastic bands and string...)? Or do you complain to the
manufacturer to get it sorted? Or, do you switch manufacturer?
I don't know if anything will ever be bug free (funny how some bugs are
'fixed' (read 'ignored') by feature releases...) but you should be able
to reach your destination without causing a pile up along the way.
> I think that instead of suggesting new business models that do not apply
> to the small scottish developer company, this discussion would benefit
Sorry, I don't see why being small or Scottish has anything to do with
this. They started this, I expect they hoped to finish it with the
resources available to them. They invested in a massive tech purchase.
A statement like that almost justifies them over-reaching themselves,
but surely that would not benefit them or their customer base.
Whatever decisions they took should not have diminished their ability to
deliver a full and well rounded product.
> from taking a radical change, what can the community do for RunRev to
> make it's experience better. Why we don't post tutorial stacks more
Their videos break the ice nicely, and additional community led docs
would be a great boon to uptake. Sounds like a job for a Wiki.
> often, why don't take 10 minutes per day to answer newbies in foruns and
> lists, why not writing articles for your local IT magazine or site... If
Wouldn't answering newbies be their job? The more involved the company
is on grass roots forums the better, not just for newbie/user perception
but also to get a feel for user issues, which I think is what they've
picked up on, hence the start of this thread. Pity that the party
started with such a commotion, but at least it got us noticed. And if
they're worried/scared about all this, good.
No really, if it needed this level of forum debate, they had not been
The IT magazine articles is an excellent idea on many fronts.
> we can help the revolution experience and attract new users to the
> revolution, then, I am sure RunRev will make more money and be able to
> afford more people and then have more resources to add the features you
> want and fix bugs.
Then I want to be paid for Marketing. :)
The onus should not be on us to promote the product. If the environment
quirks didn't get in the way, if bugs were fixed, more products would be
released: It would them become self promoting.
> we can all help and thats better than asking for impossible changes, I
> really don't want to enter the discussion of open source versus closed
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:01 PM, jbv wrote:
>> Viktoras and all,
>>> What about Runtime
>>> Revolution joining "the club"...
>> just for the pleasure of throwing more gasoline on a possible
>> flame war ;-), I must confess that I'm wondering if we all don't
>> get stuck in a wrong situation : waiting for RunRev to fix bugs,
>> waiting for RunRev to join some club to have some plugin API
>> developped, etc, etc.
>> I for one have been waiting for 3 years to have some vector
>> graphics implemented in Rev. As for 3D, I did build some raw
>> external to interface MC 2.3 with openGL (this was back in 2003
>> and must be burried deep in the archives). Honnestly, if Rev had
>> been a more open architecture, I might have considered developping
>> some more sophisticated access to openGL...
>> And that leads me to ask : instead of waiting for a small company
>> with limited (yet gifted) programing resources, why not consider
>> a complete change of business model : Revolution going open source
>> and plenty of lists members adding features to it (either as plugins in
>> Transcript or more sophisticated C-coded functions), instead of spending
>> (wasting ?) hours rambling about RR lack of reaction on certain issues ?
>> Is this really non-sense ? After all, there are companies making
>> profit by
>> "simply" distributing Linux versions...
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode