Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev would do this?)

[Brian Yennie]

I second that. As a RunRev user but also someone who does large  
projects in PHP/MySQL (both open source tools, in spite of MySQL's  
wonky licensing), this definitely rings true.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution for RunRev, but here is  
one facet which I find interesting which *maybe* they could emulate.

Many of the most popular open source tools out there have two major  
branches supported. For example, I have my choice of:

Apache
---
version 1.3.37 (still runs great, runs more sites than 2.0)
version 2.0.59 ("legacy" version of the new 2.0+ architecture)
version 2.2.4 (the latest and greatest, but still fairly stable)

PHP
---
version 4.4.7 (until recently, the latest and greatest)
version 5.2.3 (the latest and greatest)

MySQL
---
version 4.1 (what most people are using)
version 5.0 (the latest stable version)
version 5.1 (beta)
version 6.0 (alpha)

Generally speaking, the latest and greatest of each of these has  
significantly fewer users than the previous major version. Granted,  
server technologies have different requirements from GUI apps running  
on the newest consumer machines.

I wouldn't mind seeing Rev follow a similar path. What if, for  
example, you had the *paid* option to move from 2.9 to 2.9.1, 2.9.2,  
2.9.3, 2.9.4 and so on instead of jumping to 3.0? I'm guessing many  
users here would pay for the option to stay with the version they  
have if they knew it would be supported, bug fixed, and kept  
compatible with OS updates. Yes it might cannibalize some upgrades,  
but it would also create revenue from people who might never upgrade  
to the next version, especially if they see the current one breaking.

Look at Apache. 1.3.37. That's 37 bug fix releases! How many people  
here would rather spend their money on Revolution 2.9.37 than an  
upgrade to 3.0.0? I'm betting a significant chunk of this list. Some  
people would buy both. New customers could choose. Rock solid  
version, or cutting edge?

Anyway, I know this is all easier said than done - but I think it's  
worth noting that there actually is potential revenue in it for  
RunRev. Maybe even enough to hire a developer to just keep those old  
releases shiny and keep fixing bugs...

> On 6/6/07, Samuel M. Smith <smithsm at samuelsmith.org> wrote:
>>
>> The problem I have with runrev is not open source per se but that
>> with a paid model the incentive
>> is for the developer to release "feature" updates that sound good to
>> justify paying upgrade fees but
>> that for the most part are not nearly as valuable to a developer as
>> maintaining stable quality code.
>> Mature open source on the other hand has the opposite incentive,
>> stable code and only add features that
>> people are willing to invest time in to get so you get a different
>> evolution of features over time.
>
>
> Brilliant.
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution