"When you present a choice to a paying client, you should emphasis with the choice you think is superior technicaly. Hopefuly they are companies that are looking in the details and not only at branding and marketing."
It's not simply about marketing or branding. It's about accountability. With an open-source project there is no accountability. A corporation may use open-source software, but it will be purchased through a company that can offer support and more importantly accountability. So when the corporation's database gets turfed for whatever reason they have someone they can blame - someone who will fix the problem. Derek Vadneau ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicolas Cannasse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [Flashcoders] ANN: Screenweaver HX - Version 1.0 >> Several important differences between Screenweaver HX and Apollo : >> >> - size : SWHX takes 450 KB. Apollo is expected to be in the 5-9 MB >> range > > Sure, but Apollo is a global runtime isn't it? What do you exactly mean by a "global runtime" ? It's possible that once installed, you might not have to install it again. But 5-9 MB is quite big for the user the first time he want to download your application. >> - extensibility : SWHX is extensible with custom-made C libraries. >> Apollo is not > > How does that work with cross platform applications? It's up to you. If you want to support some System features in a crossplatform way, you can do it. Existing haXe libraries for example are working the same on Windows / OSX PPC+Intel (universal binaries) and Linux. But that's for "extensibility" purposes. There's already a good number of available libraries to use directly. Unless less you need some extras, you will be able to stick to haXe for programming your System Layer. >> - open source : SWHX is open source. If you get a bug, simply report >> it and it should be fixed in terms of days. If it's critical for you, >> you'll not have to wait the next big release since you can recompile >> the sources. > > With respect, were I to present a paying client with a choice between a > platform developed by a known entity and one developed by a couple of > guys in their spare time, 9/10 they're going to pick the former. And do you think this is a good thing ? :) When you present a choice to a paying client, you should emphasis with the choice you think is superior technicaly. Hopefuly they are companies that are looking in the details and not only at branding and marketing. >> - API : Apollo 1.0 does not have databases planned. From SWHX you can >> already access a big number of haXe APIs, including SQLite an MySQL >> databases. > > The edges start to blur for me here.. I can't think of many scenarios > where I'd write an application these days that accessed a database > directly. SQLite is an advantage, especially for offline support, but > aside from that I'll stick to a service architecture. A lot of Desktop apps are using somehow an embeded database. Having direct access to Sqlite is nice. You don't NEED to use it if you don't want so better to have it than not :) > I don't know how we got into this, because I think SWHX is a great idea > with oodles of potential, it's just not right for me in the long run ;-) Not exactly sure why, except for the "Brand" ? but you admited before that ScreenWeaver has already gained some reputation of its own... Or is this just unfounded discrimination ? ;) Nicolas _______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
