Linked by Kaj-de-Vos on Mon 8th Nov 2010 22:37 UTC
Syllable, AtheOS The latest version of the REBOL 3 open host kit, alpha 110, enables Syllable Desktop for the first time to run the REBOL 3 client/server RebDev collaboration application for chat and development files sharing (screenshot).
Thread beginning with comment 449147
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by philcostin
by philcostin on Mon 8th Nov 2010 23:04 UTC
philcostin
Member since:
2010-11-03

I thought Syllable was dying - I guess I was wrong - keep up the great work!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by philcostin
by Tuishimi on Mon 8th Nov 2010 23:11 in reply to "Comment by philcostin"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't know anyone actually used REBOL. A waning OS with a waning development platform ported to it. The license for REBOL is pretty steep when I could buy some other compiler/interpreter/framework for less, or better, use something else that is free. But I could just be missing its appeal and purpose.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by philcostin
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 9th Nov 2010 05:13 in reply to "Comment by philcostin"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I also thought it was dying, but I'm not so sure I'd change my mind just yet. To me, it still is.

I mean... is anything truly interesting being done with Syllable? Any truly good improvements? I'm not so sure I'd call this interesting. Maybe a good start would be something as simple as separating the programs on the installation disc into, you know, separate packages... instead of one massive archive to extract to the hard drive. Feels so clunky for an OS that claims to be "modern"...

To sum it up: Syllable was interesting, but it lost my interest a while ago, and this sure as hell doesn't regain any of it back...

Edited 2010-11-09 05:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by philcostin
by cipri on Tue 9th Nov 2010 21:41 in reply to "Comment by philcostin"
cipri Member since:
2007-02-15

i guess you are not wrong. Most of the so called "ports" are in most cases nothing more than the commands ./configure; make;make install; (and perhaps also other little adjustments). Nothing substantial has been done for syllable desktop in the last few years.

If you look at the sourcecode of syllable, nearly nothing has changed in the last years. Perhaps that's also an reason why no new version of syllable desktop was released since about 18 month, and the version before need also about 18 month (anyway more than a year, i'm sure). And it was planned to make syllable desktop release every 3 month.
Even Syllable 0.6.6 is 18 month old, i'm quite sure, that they will still not release 0.6.7 soon. I could bet that this time it will take more than 24 month (2 years).
Another ex-developer of syllable said once as a supposition: "0.6.7 will never come out".

And related to Rebol. The plans of the "co-leader" with Rebol on syllable, where one of the reasons, why at a certain time, most of the developers leaved syllable (some of the officially, others quietly without saying one word).

I liked to play with Rebol 2, I did some nice applications, but when I saw that Rebol 3 delayed for years, it became too lost my passion for it.
I remember last years, after a lot of delays, it was said: "at about christmas, we could have the R3 release, but i don't promise anything". Since than one year pasted, and it's still in alpha phase.

When is it not very visible what kind of license R3 has.

I think it would be a good idea, to ignore Rebol, till it will be really open source (GPL, BSD, MIT, or something like that). I must admit i don't know what license R3 has, but i guess it's still a quite restrictive one.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by philcostin
by Kaj-de-Vos on Tue 9th Nov 2010 21:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by philcostin"
Kaj-de-Vos Member since:
2010-06-09

You forgot your usual complaint that Syllable is dead because there are no responses to OSNews articles.

Edited 2010-11-09 22:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by philcostin
by henrikmk on Wed 10th Nov 2010 12:18 in reply to "RE: Comment by philcostin"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

When is it not very visible what kind of license R3 has.

I think it would be a good idea, to ignore Rebol, till it will be really open source (GPL, BSD, MIT, or something like that). I must admit i don't know what license R3 has, but i guess it's still a quite restrictive one.


The license for REBOL 3 so far states:

- The core is closed and stays closed to exert maximum control of the language. There is going to be an escrow license available to make sources available to specific people/companies, in case REBOL Technologies goes belly up.

- The rest around the core is open sourced using the BSD/MIT license. This is the part that was also entirely closed in REBOL 2. Having this open, means that 3rd party users can port and are porting REBOL 3 to other OSes themselves. This also makes extensions possible, where you had to pay for these before.

I don't have a formal license text available.

Also I suspect that REBOL 3 will be a free (gratis) product, because everything you had to pay for in REBOL 2, can be done with extensions by a 3rd party in REBOL 3.

The SDK (so you can build closed executables) will likely cost money, but I'm not sure.

This gives an overview of what is open and closed:

http://www.rebol.com/rebol3/architecture.html

Edited 2010-11-10 12:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2