LiveCode Player for 5.5
ray at linkit.com
Fri Mar 23 07:25:13 EDT 2012
Thanks Richard for these thoughts. I believe I fall into a variant of the "camp A" which you've mentioned, working with organizations run by really dumb and most of all lazy IT staff. Not all of our clients are like this, but frequently we'll run into IT guys who are simply too lazy too download anything to all the machines in their schools. This is a sales block and my hope was that Rev's browser plugin would get us past that, even though that, too, must be downloaded.
I couldn't agree more with the technical case you've made here but who was that shoe salesman in New York who made the famous comment "Give the lady what she wants"? We've got to make sales and if the client wants software that runs in a browser we can either argue with her or make the sale and move on. Obviously the latter of these is by far preferable.
On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Ray Horsley wrote:
> > I'm in the K-12 education field. Teachers are quickly moving away
> > from downloading anything and their IT guys are even worse, sometimes
> > setting up systems which disallow downloading a desktop app. I
> > hadn't looked at building for Web in a while but this is very
> > discouraging to find it's gone. I had hoped it had been cleaned up
> > since I last worked with it, not abandoned.
> If it's gone someone should let RunRev know:
> > From what I see the education industry is not the only area moving
> > rapidly toward doing everything in a browser. Healthcare, finance,
> > you name it, everybody spends most of the day in browsers today.
> > Does this mean the majority of us Livecoders are doing nothing more
> > than writing mobile apps?
> Ironically, a mobile app is very much like the most viable, flexible, and cost-effective alternative to RevWeb: net-savvy standalones.
> Whether the LiveCode engine is wrapped as a browser plugin or your own standalone, either way it'll need institutional buy-in to get your stacks distributed.
> Any org that will allow a third-party binary browser plugin should also allow a standalone.
> Like the browser plugin, a standalone can easily download stacks from a server, even compressed stacks for quick delivery.
> But unlike a browser you have far more options:
> Your users can enjoy the flexibility any desktop app has in terms of a UI dedicated for its workflow, along with local file access and other traditional app features, which can be used to provide an offline mode, smart caching, and more.
> And if needed, a standalone can be more secure than a browser: just turn on the secureMode as the first line in your startup handler, and your app will be prevented from many any changes at all on the local machine.
> I suspect that most of the laments from not being able to use RevWeb for deployment fall into two camps:
> a) Devs who've had to work with orgs run by dumb really dumb IT staff who somehow think that a proprietary binary executable that's called a "browser plugin" is somehow inherently safer than an application
> b) Devs who haven't really pursued such conversations with their clients seriously, so the issue is largely just theoretical for them.
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode