Linked by Kaj-de-Vos on Fri 10th Dec 2010 18:53 UTC
Syllable, AtheOS The CMS that builds the Syllable websites was used on Syllable Server so far, but has now been ported to Syllable Desktop. This was done by porting it to REBOL 3. This screenshot shows Desktop building its own website in static batch mode and synchronising it with Amazon S3. This screenshot shows the Webster browser previewing the built site as local files. Building the websites on Syllable Server is around 35% faster with REBOL 3 than with REBOL 2. A few longstanding problems in the Russian website and Syllable documentation were fixed because REBOL 3 now understands Unicode.
Order by: Score:
Vanders left?
by cipri on Fri 10th Dec 2010 23:15 UTC
cipri
Member since:
2007-02-15

I have questions related to syllable (not directly cms, or rebol).

In syllable-forum kaj wrote yesterday:
" The port of the Syllable Desktop GUI to Syllable Server is currently stalled, because the developer left."

As far as I know, Vanders was working on that. Does that mean, that Vanders left?

If Vanders left, it would be very interesting if osnews could take an interview with Vanders, just like they did after Vanders forked syllable from atheos.
It would be interesting to know his reasons and opinions.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vanders left?
by Kaj-de-Vos on Fri 10th Dec 2010 23:31 UTC in reply to "Vanders left?"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

Vanders commented on the forum just this week. He's still hosting much of the web infrastructure, but other than that, he hasn't been active since early this year.

I suppose when someone has lost interest in something, that includes giving interviews about it.

Reply Score: 1

Not to be a troll
by zizban on Sun 12th Dec 2010 15:10 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

But how does this advance Syllable as a desktop?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not to be a troll
by Kaj-de-Vos on Sun 12th Dec 2010 15:52 UTC in reply to "Not to be a troll"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

How would an extra application, for a popular activity, especially designed for Syllable, not help Syllable Desktop?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not to be a troll
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 12th Dec 2010 19:42 UTC in reply to "Not to be a troll"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

But how does this advance Syllable as a desktop?


Is there a reason to think that was (or ought to have been) the primary goal?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not to be a troll
by lucas_maximus on Mon 13th Dec 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be a troll"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Is there a reason to think that was (or ought to have been) the primary goal?


"The CMS that builds the Syllable websites was used on Syllable Server so far, but has now been ported to Syllable Desktop."

I would say that it is inferred from that statement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not to be a troll
by Kaj-de-Vos on Mon 13th Dec 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not to be a troll"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

This is getting to splitting hairs, but if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth: Yes, I consider it obvious that an extra app for Syllable Desktop advances Syllable Desktop. If that hadn't been the goal, I wouldn't have made the effort to port it. But it's an application, so if you want to talk about the Syllable desktop in general, it's also obvious that an app is not a change to the desktop proper. So the primary goal was the app on the desktop, not the desktop itself.

Edited 2010-12-13 16:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not to be a troll
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 14th Dec 2010 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not to be a troll"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Is there a reason to think that was (or ought to have been) the primary goal?


"The CMS that builds the Syllable websites was used on Syllable Server so far, but has now been ported to Syllable Desktop."

I would say that it is inferred from that statement.
"

That statement tells us precisely 2 things: that the Syllable CMS used to run only on the Syllable Server OS, and that it now runs on the Syllable Desktop OS. I suppose you could reasonably infer from the statement that someone thought there was a benefit to porting the CMS - but it's a stretch to conclude that it was done for some loftier goal of advancing the platform as a whole.

I do realize that that's a fairly minor distinction, but I'm stressing it because (at least to my eyes) the grandfather post looks a criticism of this effort on the grounds that it *doesn't* advance the platform as a whole - which I think is silly. An action can still be beneficial, even it's not done specifically/solely for "the common good".

Reply Score: 2