Rebol and New Hybrid Software Model
[1/18] from: fjouen:free at: 15-Sep-2007 14:19
Le 15 sept. 07 à 12:26, François Jouen a écrit :
> An very interesting annoucement:
> Download the "live" QNX kernel source direct from the dev teams
<<quoted lines omitted: 62>>
> web: http://chart.ephe.fr/
> <François Jouen.vcf>
François Jouen
Laboratoire Développement et Complexité
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
41, rue Gay-Lussac F-75005 Paris
Tél.: 33 (0)1 44 10 78 83
Fax: 33 (0)1 43 26 88 16
e-mail: Francois.Jouen-ephe.sorbonne.fr
e-mail: francois.jouen-numericable.fr
email: fjephe-hotmail.fr

[2/18] from: chd:1staccess:ca at: 15-Sep-2007 10:58
>> New Hybrid Software Model
Perhaps R3 should go this direction?
Open source has changed everything and all languages are competing
with the likes of PHP and javascript, java et al.
I hate talking to my ISP cause I know that as soon as I mention REBOL
on their servers, their eyes roll back into their collect heads. I
feel I can't use REBOL if there are these issues to overcome.
I don't know how you get around this prejudice on a wide spread
basis. When I mention to people to have a look at REBOL and explain
my enthusiasm for it, the first words out of their mouths is "Is it
open-source?"
There are some fundamental perception problems with REBOL and it is
carrying a lot of baggage, mostly undeserved.
How you change this...I don't know.
~chris
[3/18] from: petr::krenzelok::seznam::cz at: 15-Sep-2007 17:26
Chris Dwyer napsal(a):
> >> New Hybrid Software Model
>
> Perhaps R3 should go this direction?
>
You should know, that there is some guy at QNX company, who is author of
that hybrid model for them. That guy lives close to Carl, and they met
in the summer. Carl told him about his Hybrid model, and now QNX comes
with that. Coincidence? :-)
> Open source has changed everything and all languages are competing
> with the likes of PHP and javascript, java et al.
>
There is many examples of stuff not being open-source and popular, and
of things being open-source, yet not widespread ....
> I hate talking to my ISP cause I know that as soon as I mention REBOL
> on their servers, their eyes roll back into their collect heads. I
> feel I can't use REBOL if there are these issues to overcome.
>
And I think you are highly exagerrating. I talked to two ISPs here, and
they had no problems at all. What is more - once you have general CGI
allowed, you don't need even to mention it to them - just place rebol
executable into cgi-bin directory itself. And you know what I hate?
Morons like that, who roll back their eyes. Some few years ago, I
started to not being shy of REBOL anymore. There is NO reason to it - if
the tool in question does the job for you, just mention it. I work as a
chief of IT of large company here in CZ, my guys know about REBOL. I
don't push it on them, as REBOL is not there. Yet for general scripting
it is OK. I meet with some of IBM guys, other vendors too, and I don't
hesitate to mention REBOL to them. And you should not too ....
> I don't know how you get around this prejudice on a wide spread
> basis. When I mention to people to have a look at REBOL and explain
> my enthusiasm for it, the first words out of their mouths is "Is it
> open-source?"
>
I really have no intention to loose my time with such loosers. I already
explained my experience with one REBOL plus Python user. He generally
likes REBOL, but he does not like it is not open source. He complained
on many things. I asked him, if he ever submitted some bugreport, joined
ml to ask some questions, etc. - he never did. But he does not hesitate
to do so with Python. Yet - he NEVER looked into Python sources. I find
it being a hypocricy.
Don't get me wrong. I know about open-source advantages. But open-source
itself is not determinant of tool being usefull and good, or not .... Do
you really think, that by opening R3 kernel, we would suddenly have tens
of very good C coders to help with REBOL development? I don't think so,
there are also other factors ...
Well, one think is clear. You guys really need R3 soon enough, to have
other worries than if the tool is open sourced or not :-)
Petr
[4/18] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 15-Sep-2007 9:56
On Saturday 15 September 2007, Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> Chris Dwyer napsal(a):
> > >> New Hybrid Software Model
<<quoted lines omitted: 15>>
> allowed, you don't need even to mention it to them - just place rebol
> executable into cgi-bin directory itself.
Yikes! Don't do that. Please. There's been a discussion earlier about this
earlier...
Because cgi-bin is "open to the outside world", multiple requests like
http://mydomain.com/cgi-bin/rebol could bring the server down. And now
the ISPs would *really* be rolling their eyes. You could more safely place
it someplace like /home/mydomain/bin.
I belong to a professional organization that is mostly sysadmins for ISPs
and telcos and they are uniformly opposed to this. One of the local ISPs
the I know of - that doesn't belong - *does* allow this and they are
gonna be sorry!
MTCW
Tim
[5/18] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 16-Sep-2007 9:27
On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 17:26:21 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>There is many examples of stuff not being open-source and popular, and
>of things being open-source, yet not widespread ....
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>And I think you are highly exagerrating. I talked to two ISPs here, and
>they had no problems at all.
But it's the 21st century. Talking's out - comparing's in. I don't want to have to
ask an ISP if they support REBOL. What I want is to Google for the ISPs that are offering
the tech I want and then researching their prices and what others say about them. With
ISPs though, you get next to no hits if REBOL's part of the tech you're wanting. And
it'll stay that way until it's fully open-source. As it is, REBOL can't claim to being
a net-friendly language.
-- Carl Read.
[6/18] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 16-Sep-2007 10:03
Carl Read napsal(a):
> On Saturday, 15-September-2007 at 17:26:21 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>> There is many examples of stuff not being open-source and popular, and
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
>>
> But it's the 21st century. Talking's out - comparing's in. I don't want to have to
ask an ISP if they support REBOL. What I want is to Google for the ISPs that are offering
the tech I want and then researching their prices and what others say about them. With
ISPs though, you get next to no hits if REBOL's part of the tech you're wanting. And
it'll stay that way until it's fully open-source. As it is, REBOL can't claim to being
a net-friendly language.
It can. You just limit REBOL to server only usage. Why? Is it the only
area of possible usage? Give me AltME written in PHP. Give me IOS
written in PHP. Give me ViewTop written in PHP. You are limiting REBOL
experience just to one case - webserver development ....
I think that if ppl want, they find solution, if they just wish, they
find excuses :-)
Petr
[7/18] from: carl:cybercraft at: 16-Sep-2007 22:50
On Sunday, 16-September-2007 at 10:03:27 Petr Krenzelok wrote,
>> But it's the 21st century. Talking's out - comparing's in. I don't want to
>have to ask an ISP if they support REBOL. What I want is to Google for the
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>fully open-source. As it is, REBOL can't claim to being a net-friendly
>language.
Hmm. I was thinking web-hosts, not ISPs when I wrote the above. But anyway...
>It can. You just limit REBOL to server only usage. Why? Is it the only
>area of possible usage? Give me AltME written in PHP. Give me IOS
>written in PHP. Give me ViewTop written in PHP. You are limiting REBOL
>experience just to one case - webserver development ....
No - but it works VERY well for web-server development. So why aren't more web-hosts
offering it?
(People use ViewTop?)
>I think that if ppl want, they find solution, if they just wish, they
>find excuses :-)
Believe me, I hate complaining about REBOL's marketing...
-- Carl Read.
[8/18] from: petr::krenzelok::seznam::cz at: 16-Sep-2007 13:25
>> It can. You just limit REBOL to server only usage. Why? Is it the only
>> area of possible usage? Give me AltME written in PHP. Give me IOS
>> written in PHP. Give me ViewTop written in PHP. You are limiting REBOL
>> experience just to one case - webserver development ....
>>
>
> No - but it works VERY well for web-server development. So why aren't more web-hosts
offering it?
>
Because they are lazy dogs? :-) Well, I think that it is because REBOL
is not part of default distros. It once was with RedHat 6.2, IIRC. But I
am not sure, distro licenses do allow to include proprietary SW? So,
general web-hosts installs Linux, and you have LAMP available (Linux,
Apache, MySQL, PHP). As a bonus, you might have PostgreSQL, sqlite,
Python plus framework, Perl. So, imo, ALL it takes is to choose good
web-hosters, and ask them to upload REBOL executable for you! One email
or one phone, that is it. I did so with two web-hosts, they did it for
me in the past. Now I host my server myself :-)
> (People use ViewTop?)
>
Maybe not, but it is a good example of what can be achieved with REBOL,
and new GFX engine of R3 will allow even more ...
>> I think that if ppl want, they find solution, if they just wish, they
>> find excuses :-)
>>
>
> Believe me, I hate complaining about REBOL's marketing...
>
Can you help? Do you have some concrete opinion here? I e.g. understand
what Ed suggests here. Guys, it is in our hands, RT listens. I got Carl
to agree to create website&marketing group on AltME R3 Alpha world.
Would anyone be willing to join?
-pekr-
[9/18] from: greg:schofield:iinet:au at: 16-Sep-2007 21:08
If REBOL remains a hosted script language, it competes with inferior, but much better
market established languages.
The question of OpenSourceing the Core, may have a small effect in this, but does not
I think consitute a major marketing edge, and there are risks involved.
However, REBOL as the Application Environment running on its own miniscule OS is something
else, and does have a potential marketing edge.
Trying to get REBOL-Wildman sold to OEM is a possiblity, but a slim one regardless of
the benefits.
I keep saying the same thing, the PS3 - fixed architecture with an open invitation to
install another OS.
At the moment some 4.48 million units have been sold.
Sell REBOL-Wildman for $80, bolstered up with basic apps and just curiosity sales give
a healthy capital flow when such numbers are involved.
Those sales of a few percent, would be enough to finance porting to related fixed hardware
(small devices) and establish a niche worth having.
The light-weight nature of REBOL-Wildman and the potential ease of customising SW with
it, and using it both in hosted systems and small devices, is a niche that can grow expodentially
as the future evolves.
Such a niche can be powerful leverage point in gaining acceptence elsewhere as well.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
[10/18] from: chd::1staccess::ca at: 16-Sep-2007 10:22
>>>Such a niche can be powerful leverage point in gaining acceptence
elsewhere as well.
Perhaps the best hope for RT is to provide R3 as a development
language on the $100 laptop and let the emerging nations push it
forward. It is small and easy to learn.
To me it would be a perfect vehicle as a teaching language. It also
has the power to do what is needed to technically start closing the
divide between the haves and the have nots.
I would also like to thank all members that have made this list such
a lively place in the past few days!
Discussion leads to solutions...I'm not sure that "build it and they
will come" paradigm works anymore.
~chris
[11/18] from: btiffin:rogers at: 16-Sep-2007 14:18
Chris; Not to sound glib; it is not my intention.
Start up your own hosting service. Spread REBOL by spreading REBOL. :)
Home PC's are more than powerful enough with (completely free) GNU/Linux
server packages...
And this is the not trying to sound glib part...if you are stuck with lowspeed
modem connections that is not really a viable option, but I'd bet that
renting some space in a town that has high speed...all you need in about 6
cubic feet and a drop. Offer up the service to a few people and the line
lease and space could ending up costing you near zero. And (more expensive)
two-way satellite is available pretty much anywhere, but uplinks may always
be slower than downlink but projects like UNIC may change that landscape
soon.
The biggest time sink holes are backups, security and working out 'proof of
life' anti-spam measures. I know that everyone on the ML is tech savvy enough
to be the next Go Daddy or BlueHost.
Cheyenne is a great Web Server. (Go Doc Go!) The level of REBOL software is
growing everyday, and I hope soon they will play well together (Vanilla,
QM ... (haven't give Annabelle a test drive yet) ... many larger systems get
into namespace problems but as things progress this complaint should start to
disappear).
Being your own webmaster is just ... umm ... cool. Advertising REBOL makes it
sweet.
Cheers,
Brian
On Saturday 15 September 2007 10:58, Chris Dwyer wrote:
[12/18] from: santilli:gabriele:g:mail at: 16-Sep-2007 20:53
2007/9/16, Chris Dwyer <chd-1staccess.ca>:
> Perhaps the best hope for RT is to provide R3 as a development
> language on the $100 laptop and let the emerging nations push it
> forward. It is small and easy to learn.
Actually, I have a friend in the OLPC team... but his answer was "only
GPL software". (I guess these kind of statements can be revisited once
we can offer more than an alpha, but anyway, it's not easy to get into
that mindset.)
Regards,
Gabriele.
[13/18] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 16-Sep-2007 11:36
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Gabriele Santilli wrote:
> 2007/9/16, Chris Dwyer <chd-1staccess.ca>:
> > Perhaps the best hope for RT is to provide R3 as a development
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> we can offer more than an alpha, but anyway, it's not easy to get into
> that mindset.)
Hi Gabriele:
I'm wondering why rebol is not available in debian/ubuntu repositories.
Is that omission a GPL issue or :-) just an oversight?
Regards
Tim
[14/18] from: btiffin:rogers at: 16-Sep-2007 16:08
Tim; Last I read on the subject was from 1999.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/10/msg02106.html
I'm not sure the stance other distros that don't stick to DFSG might take.
Cheers,
Brian
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:36, Tim Johnson wrote:
[15/18] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 16-Sep-2007 13:00
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Brian Tiffin wrote:
> Tim; Last I read on the subject was from 1999.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/10/msg02106.html
>
> I'm not sure the stance other distros that don't stick to DFSG might take.
Sorry. I don't see the relevance in that link. Ubuntu didn't even exist
at that time. Not having rebol available from the ubuntu repositories
is a serious omission and should be corrected IMHO.
It would give rebol more exposure.
Tim
[16/18] from: btiffin:rogers at: 16-Sep-2007 17:19
Tim;
Sorry; just pointing out that in terms of serious effort of inclusion in ANY
distro, these 1999 entries were the only ones I've ever seen.
I agree completely that REBOL should get packaged. I've been playing with a
man page but I can't seem to handle more than a few minutes of groff at a
time. :)
Cheers,
Brian
On Sunday 16 September 2007 17:00, Tim Johnson wrote:
...snip...
[17/18] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 16-Sep-2007 16:35
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Brian Tiffin wrote:
> Tim;
> I agree completely that REBOL should get packaged. I've been playing with
> a man page but I can't seem to handle more than a few minutes of groff at a
> time. :)
Hi Brian:
You have my deepest sympathies! To tell the truth, I don't know anything
about the process of submitting to a repository. What role does groff play?
tj
[18/18] from: btiffin:rogers at: 16-Sep-2007 22:07
Tim; You probably know most of this, may not care about the rest, but here I
go. <chatty>
groff in gnu roff, one of the first markup/typesetting languages I ever
learned and I used to think it was cool. LaTeX and Makedoc put the kibosh on
that belief system. :) Short for Run Off. If I have my history correct, it
was one of the reasons AT&T funded Unix and C in the first place. The
company was told it would help with typesetting phonebooks. Man pages are
still pretty much all still based on troff, tbl, eqn and friends. For Debian
to accept a package it requires a man page, however rudimentary.
If REBOL gets a man page it deserves more than rudimentary. The command
line options part was pretty trivial but I'd like to have a lot more sections
in any final copy. I find I usually spend about 45 seconds in the file
before finding an excuse to try and beat another level of Rainbox Six
Lockdown instead. :)
The bulk of the packaging, at least for apt, is mostly listing dependencies
and then building a 'fake' tree of where files should be placed during a real
install. The fake tree is just a view of the filesystem under a working
directory. Makes it all pretty straight forward. Then it's all paperwork
and politics after that; once again for Debian and the DFSG.
Making a package and putting in a distro can be separate issues. A REBOL
package could still be posted, just for the convenience of us alternate OS
rebol rebels. I don't know RPM that well, but have read that if the
producers get the dependencies wrong (or it ages poorly), it can hose a
working system as the package manager doesn't recursively check the
dependency tree as rigorously as APT.
After many years with Coherent (old Mark Williams Unix clone), which
actually kept QNX off my home PC (which was a hard decision as QNX is based
in Ottawa where I was living) I went to Slackware 1.0 but after the initial
install of Debian, I've never looked at any other distros with any level of
seriousness. 4.0 rocks and Debian just has what seems to me to be the
ultimate release model; no fixed schedules, release it when it's done. The
DDs argue heatedly and incessantly while flaming the crap out each other;
which in my opinion keeps out the chaff, however keen they may be to help out
with core development. </chatty>
Cheers,
Brian
On Sunday 16 September 2007 20:35, Tim Johnson wrote:
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted