Across the border

All flavors welcome.
Forum rules
Be kind.
Post Reply
User avatar
richmond62
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:03 am
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Across the border

Post by richmond62 »

Is this being realistic,

or just a bit nasty?
FourthWorld wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:02 pm
richmond62 wrote: Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:22 pm To a large extent this whole discussion seems a bit academic because:

1. The last Open Source version of Livecode is freely available and can be used for teaching (as I am doing right now), and standalones can be made from it.

2. A non-LC branded Open Source version of 9.6.3 with
additions is in the pipeline (I have tested an early version on Linux).
I have deep admiration and respect for Paul McClernan, but Apple won't be supporting legacy CPU instruction sets forever. Given their history of using architectural shifts to weed out devs to protect only the most loyal willing to keep investing $$$$$ to stay current with the moving target that is an Apple platform, I'd wager they nix legacy instruction sets within 24 months. That may be plenty of time, or not, I don't know because I've never made a CPU update recompile of the LC code base and related externals.

Moreover, GPL is a very specific license, in which "free" isn't about "gratis" but "libre". GPL is a great license when proliferation of code is the goal, but not every project has that goal. I've known educators who prefer MIT not because they need proprietary commercial works but just to simplify licensing requirements for any additional components they may use, distribution channel needs, and others.

In short, the forked FOSS is a useful short-term solution, and the work is much appreciated. But its viability beyond a few semesters cannot be known at this time. And even where it may be technically viable, a non-GPL license will be needed by some individuals and organizations, even non-for-profit ones, depending on their larger goals.
https://richmondmathewson.owlstown.net/
FourthWorld
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Across the border

Post by FourthWorld »

What do you imagine is "nasty" there, and why not just reply to any of the threads here in the OpenXtalk forums where I've written similar concerns over the last year?

Your ongoing fixation on inventing controversy is tiresome.
User avatar
richmond62
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:03 am
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Across the border

Post by richmond62 »

My "ongoing fixation" is something you perceive but I don't, and this may be because we inhabit completely different worlds.

Part if this may be because, unlike you, I favour providing low-or-no cost software solutions that run on relatively antiquated systems.

So, while Apple is on an ever-onwards escalator, schools and private individuals may be coping with 10-15 year old Apple machines.
https://richmondmathewson.owlstown.net/
FourthWorld
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Across the border

Post by FourthWorld »

richmond62 wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 6:17 pm My "ongoing fixation" is something you perceive but I don't...
Oh? For many years you took pride in trolling, framing it as being a "gadly".
Part if this may be because, unlike you, I favour providing low-or-no cost software solutions that run on relatively antiquated systems.

So, while Apple is on an ever-onwards escalator, schools and private individuals may be coping with 10-15 year old Apple machines.
Users are not always contributors.

My post (which you lifted out of its context to drop here) was about OpenXTalk development, not usage.

Unless you've missed a giant chunk of everything I've written for the last ten years, you'd know that I use Linux as my daily carry, am an Ubuntu community member and contributor, served for eight years as LC's Open Source Community Liaison, and frequently suggest Linux to replace OSes on hardware that's still viable but has been abandoned by its manufacturer.

So those who read what I write know that I advocate free software, and do so in both senses of the "free" in Free Software.

But end-users rarely contribute code, and very few contribute money.

Paul has donated an incredible amount of time to this project, but the scope of work needed to travel the road ahead is bigger than one person can do alone.

If you look at where thriving FOSS projects get their funding, it's very to see anywhere close to a majority of it coming from end-user contributions.

Businesses keep FOSS running. They make money, and they need infrastructure. FOSS projects provide infrastructure, and need funding. Win-win.

Consider the world's largest FOSS project, the Linux kernel. Check out the sponsors:
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/our-mem ... erpower-2/

Microsoft, Adobe, Qualcomm, Oracle, Akamai, Amazon, Meta, Autodesk, and others all have a lot of their organizational value in proprietary software. Many of them earn significant revenue from selling proprietary software. And all of them rely on free and open source software to provide the infrastructure they need to keep running. And in return, they pay some of that upstream to the FOSS projects that provide that infrastructure. While many thousands around the world work on Linux, three-fourths of them are on payroll.

I would imagine that in the LC world a significant amount of value from the LC engine is derived by large companies using it only for internal projects. And I would imagine at least some of those never contributed to LC Ltd when LC was open source. But it seems reasonable to ask, now that those companies have seen what happens when they don't support a project they rely on, if some of them may be in a position to contribute.

In short, yes, of course, if OpenXTalk can bring the Linux edition back to the feature parity it used to be with the originating company many years ago, it can help support users who need a well maintained OS on hardware abandoned by its manufacturer.

But to do that, and the other ambitions the OpenXTalk project aims for, will require funding. Big business is both more capable and more motivated to do that than most.

And if you can find a way to turn end-users into contributors to help with all this, that much better.
User avatar
richmond62
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 11:03 am
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Across the border

Post by richmond62 »

You may be unaware of the fairly significant difference between sh*t stirring just for the sake of sh*t stirring and playing the devil's advocate.

In my mind, at least, the distinction is clear.

Seeing, as I have, a company dominated by one, seemingly rather narrow way of thinking, I have attempted to provoke thinking in some different directions, and particularly in the field of education.

I, also, made several donations towards LiveCode's fund raising efforts, based on promises made by that company, some of which did not materialise.

You may have noticed that, at present, I am sharing on the LC forums my imitation of an abstract game as a demonstration of one of the ways LiveCode can be made 'real' to young learners.

While there are theoretical puffs of air from time to time about LC and education, I have not seem much by the way of practical demonstrations of that.

Should Paul McClernan get a dephlogisticated version of the 'thing' that works cross-platform I shall share my educational ideas and ventures over here.
https://richmondmathewson.owlstown.net/
User avatar
OpenXTalkPaul
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Across the border

Post by OpenXTalkPaul »

Just catching up on this thread now.
Apple won't be supporting legacy CPU instruction sets forever. Given their history of using architectural shifts to weed out devs to protect only the most loyal willing to keep investing $$$$$ to stay current with the moving target that is an Apple platform, I'd wager they nix legacy instruction sets within 24 months
They way things are headed Apple may not need to, if the LCC xTalk Engine can be compiled from C++ code that targets x86 (which for decades most code has) into WebAssembly, an intermediary byte-code with underlying hardware platform abstracted away, well there you go. And WebAsembly modules can be run outside of a Web Browser. You won't get quite CPU 'native' speeds, but it may be close enough. Here's an x86 linux that runs in WASM: https://webvm.io

I also really think that the LCC xTalk engine(s) may not be the only way forward for an OpenXTalk.
I don't know it, seems like people may have Stockholm syndrome.
"Embrace, extend, and exterminate" didn't work out so well before, in fact MicroSoft has just about done a complete 180 on that sort of anti-FOSS thinking.

Anyway, I personally don't need any money to do this work as far as I'm able to, and so far there hasn't yet been any real need for funding (beyond this site/domain registration), I mean for things like automated build integration service or anything like that. There may be a time where this project needs some funding for somethings like that though. Some past research has indicated to me that there are some things like that available for free to FOSS projects.

Of course I would be glad to have more community involvement, but I don't think OXT needs to be a top FOSS project with mega-corp funding to keep going.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests