Re: Eu OpenSource Vision
David Cuny writes:
> Martin Stachon wrote:
>
> > I think it is a difference if a library is written by
> > a simple guy in his spare time or if there are several people
> > improving the product every day.
>
> Perhaps you meant "single" instead of "simple"?
Yes, I was in hurry.
>
> > I'm now under impression of the Linux world. So
> > many useful programs and libraries are for free.
> > Nobody is offering the people a cash. They are
> > doing it just for their good feeling they're
> > doing something for everyone, and maybev a bit of fame
>
> Look at SourceForge, and you'll see that even in the Linux world there are
> far more projects that are started and abandoned, or left incomplete, than
> there are completed. While many Open Source projects have no sponsorship,
> many more do. Many KDE and Gnome projects, Python, OpenOffice, AbiWord,
> wxWindows - all of these have had corporate sponsorship.
But Euphoria - only IDE developping and win32lib with time delays.
I don't know of any other active projects.
> >> I think it will be difficult to unite people behind
> >> a single coding style.
> >
> > For example, Linux kernel has a united coding style.
> > I think the most important ascpect of coding style is naming
> > variables - it would be confusing to have a library with
> > fooBar(), foo_bar() and FooBar()
>
> I agree that a single project can have a single coding style, but I doubt
> you could get the whole community to adopt a single style. In the C world,
> people have had flamewars for year over writing things like this:
>
> while (1)
> {
> /* code */
> }
>
> versus:
>
> while (1) {
> /* code *
> }
>
I think the second way was accepted. I didn't want to say
"everybody must code this way", but I wanted to say
"it would be nice to not have confusion with WSockGetIP, int_to_bytes,
getText etc."
> >> I haven't heard patch submission as being a major issue.
> >
> > But it would be good, especially with larger projects.
>
> Well, you'd need something like CVS first. Although I suppose someone
could
> write diff program in Euphoria for creating patches.
Since Eu projects are small (<1 MB), it is easy to distribute the whole file
modified, but for example with win32lib it would be good to release a patch
after each of all the bugfixes Derek's posting, and of course with larger
projects.
> >> Euphoria is a commercial product. Why would Robert give it away?
> >
> > A few of commercial products have been given to public.
> > Binding would remain in the 'commercial' release, but removing
> > the 300 statements limit would attract more OpSo developers,
> > hopefully, from other languages.
>
> I think that the 300 statement limit is a larger incentive to register
> Euphoria than the ability to bind it.
>
> I'm curious to know how well Euphoria has fared in the Linux market. Given
> the history of people expecting most things on the platform to be free,
I'd
> like to know if there's a significant number of registered Linux users -
> apart from those that started using Euphoria in DOS/Windows, of course.
>
>
> > (Why would a Perl, Python, C etc. programmer try some
> > 'shareware') Some GNU people accept no commercial software.
>
> So basically, you'd have to remove any ability for Robert to make money on
> Euphoria in order for it to be accepted in the Linux community? Keep in
mind
> that 'Open Source' isn't the same as 'Free'.
Just a idea of possibility of incereasing no. of users. But I guess Rob, of
course,
wants to have a source of money.
> > Rob would remain as the main programmer, while the others would make
> > some optimizations, bug fixes, testing etc.
>
> Except that, since he could no longer make much money off it, there would
be
> no reason for Robert to work on Euphoria any more. Even in Eric Raymond
> would agree that Euphoria is the sort of project that would not bene
>
>
> > Lot of people could work on the E2C Translator
> > (I think it can be more optimized), while Rob
> > would have more time.
>
> When it comes to being able to optimize things like Euphoria, my money is
on
> Robert.
>
>
> > Just a poor's boy opinion, but I think OpenSource is the future.
>
> If you look at "The Magic Cauldron", even Eric S. Raymond admits there is
> one case when you would not want to go Open Source: to protect sales
value.
> I think this is the case with Euphoria. Making Euphoria Open Source would
be
> great for the users, but not for Robert's revenue.
>
> I'll also point out that a free, Open Source version of Euphoria currently
> available. Pete Eberlein wrote it, and Menno is maintaining it. There was
no
> rush from Euphoria folk to work on it, and it's been languishing. It's a
> pity, because it's a nice bit of work, and even generates C code (like
E2C).
It seems that most of people (including me) don't work so good for free as
if they would be paid for it. This is capitalism. Maybe Eu should remain
commercial, but making Eu OS wasn't my main idea. Maybe some good
propagation with some good apps written in Eu may attract more people
that making Eu OS.
Martin
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
