The past is dead. Those who strive to life in the past, only aim for their own death.
On 02.02.2013, at 00:42, Joe Lewis Wilkins wrote: > I'd like to take a completely tangential approach to this whole dilemma. > > When I first came aboard, I was thrilled by what I thought was to be a > continuation of "H/C"; but, shortly I was to be disillusioned by a number > of factors. > > 1. I had little problem with the initial cost to sign up for Revolution; > but, very soon I discovered that it was going to be MUCH more expensive for > the "H/C" accustomed user to adopt. I'll talk about this more, later on. > 2. Though I certainly appreciated the multi-platform aspects and a few other > "tweaks"; I was flabbergasted to discover that RunRev had mangled the H/C > framework by eliminating the Background layer in stacks, providing a very > clumsy alternative method, so that the millions who could be adopting it from > H/C would have to re-implement most of their legacy stacks. It just wasn't > the same Object Hierarchy any more. I tried to be upbeat with the articles I > wrote on MacInstruct about Revolution, but Revolution just wasn't a better > H/C. What RunRev did later in transitioning to LiveCode is a totally > different issue. The damage had already been done. > > So.... what should have been done? I realize that one of the Steves would be > a hard sell; but, in some manner, Apple needed to get behind Revolution. We > needed some really deep pockets, such as Woz to endorse Revolution so that > the price for Revolution would be like H/C - you bought it once. Then it > should have been developed to perfection as Revolution, probably up to the > Intel Mac level and "bug-free". Once Macs switched to Intel CPUs, a totally > new line could begin that would have been LiveCode. At this point Revolution > should then have been bundled (free) with all new Macs and PCs, providing an > option to down-load the new LiveCode Platform for a nominal, layered fee of > some amount that users knew they could count on for new major - releases; > knowing in advance that they would be able to use these as fully functional > and reliable should they elect not to continue with the new releases. > > I realize that, in hind-sight it is fairly easy to see where things "might" > be going; something that most of us would not have been able to anticipate in > the moment, but the future of LC should have been better scripted so that > RunRev was ALWAYS producing identifiable products that were capable of > performing predictable applications; so the users ended with a list of > products instead of an endless string of unreliable prodcts with a single > name. Yes, there would be nominal charges for each new level, but the user > would know that without the new "product", he/she could stop at any point. I > know I'm glossing over many of the obstacles that might have been > encountered, but I'm sure you all get my point. > > I feel confident that that a well structured plan similar to this would have > brought a great many into the fold. I want my background layer back. Not > going to happen, I know. (sigh) > > Joe Wilkins > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > >> Peter Haworth <pete@...> writes: >> >>> >>> OK, but Java isn't "Apple software", is it? Even their own software >>> updates notify me it's about to be updated and a chance to say yay or nay. >>> Plus, owning the software doesn't seem like it gives them the right to >>> block it from running on my computer. >> >> Of course it does - my guess is that it was installed as part of the >> operating >> system, meaning that you didn't take it upon yourself to delete it and >> replace >> it with OpenJDK or something similar. Look, I'm not going to try to explain >> the >> rest of the EULA to you because I'm not one of them lawyer fellas and I'll >> probably screw it up. But "Apple software" is defined, various third-party >> licenses are dealt with, and you agreed to it, including that part about >> Apple >> reserving "all rights not expressly granted to you". Game over. >> >> -- >> Mark Wieder >> mwie...@ahsoftware.net >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> use-livecode mailing list >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription >> preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode -- Use an alternative Dictionary viewer: http://bjoernke.com/bvgdocu/ Chat with other RunRev developers: http://bjoernke.com/chatrev/ _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
