Business Application Framework

[Brahmanathaswami, Sannyasin]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Kluthe <andrew at ctech.me> wrote:

> I think git support without
> having to fiddle around too much would be pretty important to an open
> source community.
>


Where did this announcement appear? I haven't seen it in my email and it's
not in my spam.

I have to agree. I have paid (and paid and paid) RunRev from the very day
(even before Kevin went "live" with the new company and was still
transitioning from Scott's admin) for every offer to help with their cash
flow into the future by buying into what is now an "indy" license for X
number of years into the future. (I think I am up to 2021 now.) putting a
lot of faith in this company, and convincing stakeholders, who hold the
purse strings, that we can trust and depend on Kevin and his team going
into the future...

and now, to be told that to have a collaborative environment... we have to
pay again.. this is

a) very disappointing
b) IMHO very bad strategy: while I appreciate and respect HQ's need for a
revenue stream (as witnessed by my commitment to ever single long term
offer the company ever made, including open source.)  I don't think this a
good strategy for the future of the product/language.  All the other big
guns, Node, Ruby, Javascript, PHP... you can just open a GIT account and go
to work... but here we sit working on a stack pondering how we can share
this with a colleague... I was just thinking about this the other day and
wondering if we need resurrect "Magic Carpet" and us some kind or RCS for
stack development collaboration. It would work, but still rather primitive
in terms of being able to fork, regression options etc.  Kevin stated on
video in Southern California that he wanted LiveCode to be one of the 10
most popular used languages in the field. Locking collaboration behind a
paywall is certainly going to kill that goal for sure.

I suggest a different model for an additional revenue stream, one that is
used by a fellow UK engineering team (Chris Graham) that runs the very
successful OC Portal php CMS: Sell credit hours for support. e.g. you
charge $25.00 per hour for support. I buy 10 hours.. pay LC $250.00.  Check
out OC Portal support model... best we have ever seen for a software
product. If I need help HQ helps me until my hours run out. In Chris's case
(high integrity factor there) if it is a bug in the software, he will not
dock your credit hours. If your request is a "feature" request.. and it
take him 20 hours to get it done... he does not bill you for the extra
ten... why? Because he figures that the dialogue with his client about the
new feature was a win-win since now OC Portal has a cool new widget/feature
that enhances the product for everyone else and future prospects. His paid
support clients are helping him build and build and build the product.

Where is the announcement?