Feature Exchange - Find and Replace

William Prothero prothero at earthednet.org
Thu Nov 19 15:18:34 EST 2015

I guess I am, perhaps like others, trying to wrap my head around what expectations are reasonable for use financed vs mother ship financed improvements to livecode. In the past, I have used commercial, purchased software, like Director, Supercard, Word, etc, where the model is that some profit-making entity creates a software package and sells it, then upgrades it as time and technology changes. There is a charge for each updated version and that supports the software development entity. I mention this only because that is my experience, mostly, in the software world. My only open source experience is with the software on my vps server at LiquidWeb, which has lots of open source software on it, but I only pay LiquidWeb, not (directly at least) for the software.

Now we have “open source” and a yearly license fee, plus user financed updates for specific features, not to mention added license fees for specific new components, like HTML5. I understand that the mothership needs to survive and to be sustainable and it takes resources to keep the software current. I worry that the special license deals given to the kickstarter contributors (I am one of them) has created a situation where the mothership has borrowed from the future and the yearly licensing fees have already been spent, thus the need for more kickstarter type funding to implement features that, in the normal world, would be classified as general updates to keep the tools alive and current. We have updates to 64 bit for OSX, which if not done, would eventually render the application unusable in OSX, and copy paste improvements that seem like basic features. 

So, I am somewhat scratching my head about this. Obviously if the mothership goes under, we all lose, big time, and I appreciate that. Also, if the resources at the mothership simply don’t exist for certain updates, then ….. they won’t get done without added funding from the users. I recently read a blog by an open source company that gave away so much of their product to open source, that they didn’t have anything to sell.

So, I’m just thinking out loud here and possibly expressing sentiment others might share.


> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Robert Mann <rman at free.fr> wrote:
> Hi! I'me a bit puzzled..  i've been waiting about 10 years for a comfortable
> audio framework within runrev/livecode that would allow all of us to use
> embed compressed audio within live code stacks and exchange kind of "audio
> cards" easily over the internet. Well, damn it... !
> So.. an addition to find & replace, looks a bit.. out of place in my view. 
> QUESTION :: ==> WOuld it be SO VERY DIFFICULT for live code now to just have
> the possibility of storing any kind of really compressed audio format???
> Just that!! no frills.. just that! 
> (to be precise, i did found a [complicated]  turnaround which involved
> recording in wave, than transcoding using lame as a separate program to be
> installed (and that made it just impracticable for a commercial product with
> the potential problems that occurred quickly with only 3 testers!!) and then
> converting to quicktime movie... and eventually storing into a cProp. But
> man... but man.. )
> Sorry for that not so positive view.. and I know the mothership team did,
> does and will do climb mountains.. but.. such a little tiny hill bump would
> make a lot of us happy I think!
> With a smile, Robert
> --
> View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Feature-Exchange-Find-and-Replace-tp4698867p4698869.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

More information about the use-livecode mailing list